Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement executed in 2013. The plaintiff (appellant) agreed to purchase property jointly owned by defendants 1 and 2 for Rs. 20 lacs, paying Rs. 5 lacs as advance. The first defendant executed a power of attorney in favour of the second defendant, who executed the agreement on behalf of both. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform, but the second defendant failed to appear at the Sub Registrar's office on 14.01.2016. The suit was filed in 2015, and the first defendant appeared but did not file a written statement, leading to an exparte decree on 13.04.2016. The first defendant died on 22.02.2017, long after the decree. The plaintiff initiated execution proceedings in 2018, and the legal representatives (respondents) appeared on 20.08.2018. However, they filed an application to set aside the exparte decree only on 04.01.2020, with a delay of 1312 days. The Trial Court refused to condone the delay, but the High Court reversed, condoning the delay on payment of costs and directing expeditious disposal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the delay was not properly explained. The legal representatives were aware of the decree from August 2018, and the excuse that the lawyer misplaced files was not credible, especially since the same lawyer continued to represent one of them. The court found no sufficient cause for the delay and noted that the first defendant had not contested the suit during his lifetime. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Trial Court's order refusing condonation.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Exparte Decree - The court considered whether a delay of 1312 days in filing an application to set aside an exparte decree should be condoned. The Supreme Court held that the delay was not properly explained, as the legal representatives were aware of the decree when they appeared in execution proceedings, and the excuse of misplaced files was not credible. The law favours the diligent, not the indolent. (Paras 8-11) B) Specific Performance - Exparte Decree - Setting Aside - Delay - The court examined the conduct of the first defendant who appeared but did not file a written statement, and his legal representatives who delayed filing the application despite knowledge of the decree. The Supreme Court found no sufficient cause for condonation and reversed the High Court's order. (Paras 5-10) C) Equitable Jurisdiction - Hardship - The court rejected the argument of hardship, noting that the plaintiff had deposited the balance consideration and had been waiting for possession for a decade. The alleged collusive nature of the agreement was not substantiated. (Paras 7, 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in condoning a delay of 1312 days in filing an application to set aside an exparte decree for specific performance, given the lack of sufficient explanation and the conduct of the legal representatives.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned order of the High Court set aside. Order of the Trial Court refusing condonation of delay restored.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Exparte decree
- Specific performance
- Due diligence
- Equitable jurisdiction
