Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) Cm-11629-C-2016 For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the delay of 85 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA-4452-2016
(2.) The appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the judgment and decree rendered by the lower Appellate Court, whereby the suit for recovery of Rs.50,000/- inclusive of interest for the period i.e. 28.06.2004 to 06.10.2009 along with future interest @ 12% p.a., has been dismissed, in essence, the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside.
(3.) Mr. Manish Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff submits that the respondents-defendants had entered into an agreement to sell dated 12.03.2004 in respect of a land on the premise that the sale deed would be registered and executed within a period of 30 days from the date of seeking inheritance of the property. He further submits that the inheritance of the property was obtained within a period of 30 days. However, during interregnum i.e. on 28.06.2004, two months after the execution of the agreement to sell, sold the property, in dispute, to a third party. An FIR dated 06.02.2006, in this respect, was lodged and the suit seeking recovery was filed 14.10.2009 and therefore, the plaintiff could not have been non-suited on the ground of limitation. The benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act should have been granted. The lower Appellate Court has committed illegality and perversity in reversing the well reasoned findings of the trial Court and urges this Court for setting aside the judgment and decree under challenge.;