- (1.) This interlocutory application (I.A. No. 281 of 2009) has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal, which is time barred by 312 days. In spite of this huge and unusual delay, we consider it in the interest of justice to condone the same so that the dismissal of the appeal merely on account of delay may not result into grave miscarriage of justice in any manner. Hence, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the interlocutory application for condonation of delay is allowed. L.P.A. No. 25 of 2009
(2.) This appeal has been preferred against the interlocutory order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.2699 of 1998(R) by which the learned Single Judge has directed the Respondent No.7/appellant herein to pay Rs.14 lakhs to the Respondent No.8 as per his undertaking furnished to the Court within four weeks from the date of the said order. Thus, it is obvious that the writ petition is still subjudice before the learned Single Judge and the interim order has been passed directing the Respondent No.7/appellant herein to make the payment of Rs.14 lakhs to the Respondent No.8 as per his undertaking on the ground that he is a builder and developer of the land in regard to which there is a dispute between the Respondent No.7 (Manorma Verma) and Respondent No.8 (Bana Munda).
(3.) To explain the controversy in substance, it may be stated that a dispute is existing in between the Respondent No.7 (Manorma Verma) and Respondent No.8 (Bana Munda) in regard to the plot of land at Kokar in the city of Ranchi and the dispute is sub-judice between the Respondent No.7 and Respondent No.8 in regard to the title of the land in question but it appears that the Respondent No.7 (Manorma Verma) in spite of the disputed title raised by the Respondent No.8 (Bana Munda) entered into an agreement with the appellant- Arbind Chandra Prasad for raising multi-storied construction which is already complete and therefore Respondent No.7 (Manorma Verma) claimed that the payment be made by the appellant to her as per the agreement. The appellant also appears to have executed an undertaking before the learned Single Judge that he would pay a sum of Rs.14 lakhs to her as assured by him on 10.10.2006 and therefore the learned Single Judge appears to have directed the appellant to make the payment to her.;