Allowed

Anuj Kumar Singh v. Yogendra Prasad Singh

Delhi HC2 Aug 2017RFA/495/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal challenging the Trial Court's rejection of an application to condone delay in filing leave to defend under CPC Order XXXVII Rule 3(6). The High Court allowed the appeal, condoning the six-day delay on the ground of difficulty understanding English, subject to costs, and remitted the matter.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the impugned judgment and decree dated 11th April, 2016 are set aside; the delay of six days is condoned subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the appellant to the respond

Anuj Kumar Singh Vs Yogendra Prasad Singh — Specific Performance | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 02^nd August, 2017

¶4

- RFA 495/2016

¶5

ANUJ KUMAR SINGH ..... Appellant

¶6

Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH ..... Respondent

¶9

Through: None.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

¶11

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶12

The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 11^th April, 2016 whereby the learned Trial Court has declined to condone the delay of six days in filing the application for leave to defend and has passed the decree against the appellant under Order XXXVII Rule 3(6) of CPC.

¶13

There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent despite the matter having been passed over twice. It is 3:00 p.m.

¶14

The respondent instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.8,10,000/- against the appellant in which the notice was issued to the appellant. The appellant received the summons on 8^th July, 2014 and entered appearance under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of CPC on 14^th July, 2014. On 30^th August, 2014, the appellant received the summons for judgment in pursuance to which he filed an application for leave to defend on 16^th September, 2014. The appellant

¶15

RFA 495/2016 Page 1 of 3

¶16

also filed an application for condonation of delay of six days in filing the application on the ground that the appellant was not able to read and understand English Language and, therefore, could not understand the technicality for filing of leave to defend application within 10 days. The appellant claimed to be under the impression that the matter was listed before the Trial Court on 18^th September, 2014 and, therefore, the appellant handed over the summons to his counsel after 11 days of receiving it.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that the explanation given by the appellant constitutes sufficient cause for the delay. Reliance is placed on N. Balakrishnan v. M Krishnamurthy , (1998) 7 SCC 123 and HDFC v. Anil Laul , 85 (2000) DLT 373. In HDFC v. Anil Laul , similar ground for condonation of delay was raised which was accepted by this Court as sufficient cause for delay.

¶18

This Court is satisfied that the appellant has shown sufficient cause for delay of six days in filing the application for leave to defend.

¶19

The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 11^th April, 2016 are set aside. The delay of six days in filing the application for leave to defend by the appellant is condoned subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.

¶20

List the appellant’s application for leave to defend before the Trial Court on 28^th August, 2017.

¶21

The record of the Trial Court be returned back forthwith.

¶22

Copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent.

¶23

RFA 495/2016 Page 2 of 3

¶24

Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the appellant under the signature of the court master.

¶25

AUGUST 02, 2017 ak

¶26

J.R. MIDHA, J.

Anuj Kumar Singh v. Yogendra Prasad Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Kumar Singh v. Yogendra Prasad Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

UOI Vs Krishan Kumar

Tarneet Singh Chawla Vs Seva Singh

Vikas Vs Vakil

D.T.C. Vs Harish Ahuja & Anr.

Vijay Mohan & Anr. Vs Pawan Kumar & Ors.

Ruchi Mehrotra Vs the Dy Labour Commissioner & Anr.