Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a second appeal filed by Narayansingh s/o Omkarsingh Baghel and Roshan son of Narayansingh Baghel (appellants) against an order dated 09.10.2015 passed by the learned District Judge in Civil Misc. Application No.7/2015. The District Judge had declined to condone a delay of 1869 days in filing a first appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2009 passed in Special Civil Suit No.63/2008 (Old Civil Suit No.181/2003). The original suit was filed by respondent no.1 Smt. Aruna Patil (original plaintiff) against respondent no.2 Chetan Kamdi (original defendant) seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 13.11.2001 regarding land Survey no.381, ad-measuring 6.62 HR at Mouza Chimur, District Chandrapur. The suit was initially decreed ex parte on 03.04.2005, but that decree was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh trial. After fresh trial, the suit was again decreed on 08.12.2009. The appellants, who claimed to have purchased the suit property from the defendant during the pendency of the suit, filed a first appeal against the decree with a delay of 1869 days. The lower appellate court rejected their application for condonation of delay. The High Court admitted the second appeal on 16.01.2017 on the substantial question of law whether the lower appellate court erred in rejecting the condonation application. The High Court held that the appellants, being stranger purchasers, had no independent right to challenge the decree without showing sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. The Court found that the explanation offered by the appellants was vague and insufficient, and the lower appellate court had rightly exercised its discretion. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The appellants, stranger purchasers, sought condonation of 1869 days delay in filing first appeal against a decree of specific performance. The Court held that the lower appellate court did not err in rejecting the application as the appellants failed to show sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. The Court emphasized that a stranger purchaser claiming through the defendant cannot claim a right to appeal without explaining the delay satisfactorily. (Paras 1-10) B) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance - Rights of Stranger Purchaser - The original suit was for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 13.11.2001. The trial court decreed the suit on 08.12.2009. The appellants purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit and later sought to challenge the decree. The Court noted that the appellants were not parties to the suit and their purchase was subject to the decree. (Paras 3-5) C) Civil Procedure Code - Appeal - Delay Condonation - Order 41 Rule 3A CPC - The Court observed that the lower appellate court had considered the explanation for delay and found it insufficient. The High Court in second appeal found no error in the exercise of discretion by the lower appellate court. (Paras 6-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower appellate Court committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 1869 days caused in filing an appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that the lower appellate court did not commit any error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Inordinate delay
- Stranger purchaser
- Right to appeal
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963
