- (1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure P5), whereby the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon has allowed the application of defendant No.1, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and fixed the main case for hearing.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the said order is non-speaking and once the defendant No.1 had slept over the judgment and decree which had been passed against him on 30.05.2013 (Annexure P1), the application for condonation of delay should not have been allowed in a cursory manner as has been done by the Additional District Judge.
(3.) A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the dispute is inter se brothers. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit claiming to be owner in possession of the half share of the agricultural land measuring 20 kanals 17 marlas and set up a family settlement executed in January, 1998. Challenge was also laid to a Civil Court decree passed in favour of defendant No.1 dated 08.08.2000 and the mutation on the basis of the decree. The said suit was contested on the ground that it was time-barred and that the present petitioner had also signed the Vakalatnama in the plaint. Due to a construction of a road adjoining the property, the dispute has arisen. Due to the closing of evidence, the suit was decreed in favour of the present petitioner on 30.05.2013.;