- (1.) LEAVE granted. This appeal is directed against the order dtd. 24/3/2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in I.A. No. 3575 of 2008 in C.S. (OS) No. 1330 of 2006 whereby he dismissed the application filed by the appellant-plaintiff for enlargement of time to enable him to sign the plaint, and order dtd. 16/7/2008 passed by the Division Bench in Gurmeet Singh Grewal Vs. J.P Jethera whereby the appeal preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge has been dismissed.
(2.) A perusal of the record shows that on 26/6/2006 when the plaint was presented, Registry of the High Court pointed out three defects i.e. deficiency in court fee, plaint and verification not signed and original documents not filed. On the next date i.e. 4/7/2006, the case could not be taken up because the learned Judge was on leave. On 11/7/2006, the suit was directed to be registered, notice was issued to the defendant and an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo was passed. On 10/1/2007, the appellant- plaintiff was directed to remove the defects with a stipulation that if he fails to do so, an adverse order may be passed. Thereafter, the appellant-plaintiff removed two defects, but the defect that the plaint was not signed and verified was not removed. In the meanwhile, I.A. No. 1574 of 2007 was filed on behalf of the respondent-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. The counsel for the appellant accepted notice of the application on 13/2/2007 and the case was adjourned to 17/5/2007. It was again adjourned on three different dates. On 18/1/2008, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-defendant raised an objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of non-removal of the defect.
(3.) THEREAFTER , an application was filed on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff under S. 148 Civil P.C. for enlargement of the time. The same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that there was no justification to entertain the prayer for enlargement of time because the plaintiff failed to remove the defect for more than 14 months. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed1 the appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff and confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal by special leave.;