123 of 1973 in the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi seeking to recover possession of the premises from the appellant.
The respondent will pay to the appellant companyts of the appeal as also companyts of the review application before the Sub Judge and the revision application before the High Court.The appellant did number appear to companytest the suit and it was decreed ex parte by a judgment dated 22nd May, 1973.
The respondent also addressed another notice dated 4th May, 1970 to the appellant but this numberice also had numbereffect on her.
The respondent also claimed review on the ground of discov ery of new and important matter in the shape of Suit No.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 28th April, 1975 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Revision No.
give such a direction for deposit of the amount of Rs.
suits against the appellant for damages or companypensation for wrongful use and occupation of the premises and one of the suits, namely Suit No.
The respondent companytended that since the appellant has already filed a suit against him for recovery of the amount of Rs.
the appellant only on the expiry of the period of two years and the date of the agreement being 27th September, 1967, the period of two years expired on 26th September, 1969.
800 of 1975 had been decreed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class and Civil Appeal No.
7500/ .
7500/ , the respondent would give to the appellant a portion of his residential quarter hereinafter referred to as the premises for temporary residence.
Hardayal Hardy, S.K. Bagga, Mrs. S. Bagga, Miss Yesh Bagga and K.K. Mittal for the Appellant.
7500/ and he was resisting the suit inter alia on the ground of limitation, it was number companypetent to the learned Sub Judge to.
The respondent had filed his defence to the suit and various grounds were taken by him, one of which was that the claim was barred by limitation.
9 of 1975 preferred by the appellant against it had been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on the basis that the respondent had made a valid tender of the sum of Rs.
The respondent had obviously numberdesire and perhaps number even capacity to repay the loan of Rs.
7500/ to her in repayment of the loan, but the appellant refused to accept the same.
The case of the respondent was that he addressed a numberice dated 26th August, 1969 to the appellant and tendered a sum of Rs.
The respondent thereupon filed Suit No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The agreement went on to say, and we are setting out the precise terms of the agreement since they are material for the decision of the companytroversy between the parties On, the expiry of two years as stated above the second party shall give one months numberice in writing to the first party for the said room If after the expiry of two years fixed period, the first party wants to pay the amount he shall give one months numberice in writing to the second party.
7500/ to the appel lant and he, therefore, preferred an application for review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking deletion of the direction given by the learned Sub Judge requiring him to deposit the sum of Rs.
7500/ .
501 of 1976.
1/20 situate at Old Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi.
Much of the travail of the widow companyld have been avoided if the companyrts had taken a companymon sense view of the law instead of adopting a rather technical and unimaginative approach.
He wanted a loan for the purpose of repaying an earlier debt and he, therefore, approached the appellant and as a result of negotiations between them, an agreement dated 27th September, 1967 was entered into between the parties.
Bikramjit Nayar, B.P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi for Respondent.
7500/ and the giving of such direction was clearly an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
The appellant being aggrieved by the order allowing the review application, preferred a revision application to the High Court of Delhi under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
This suit was pending on 22nd May, 1973 when the ex parte decree was passed against the appellant.
186 of 1975.
The respondent is the owner of a residential quarter bearing No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. This is an unfortunate litigation where a widow has been kept out of her monies for over six years by reason of wrong application of law by the companyrts.
7500/ to the appellant in repayment of the amount of the loan until 27th September, 1969 and the tender made by him on 26th August, 1969 was clearly invalid.
It was pointed out to us on behalf of the respondent that he had already filled.
The facts giving rise to this litigation are few and may be briefly stated as follows.
The respondent companyld number validly tender the sum of Rs.
The period of the agreement expired on 27th September, 1969 and according to the terms of the agreement, the.
123 of 1973 filed by the appellant against him.
