Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a Civil Revision Petition filed by two petitioners against an exparte decree in a suit for specific performance. The petitioners contended that they were unaware of the exparte decree and sought to set it aside, claiming a delay of 792 days in filing their application was justified. The respondent argued that the petitioners, including a minor, had engaged counsel and were aware of the proceedings, thus failing to show sufficient cause for the delay. The court examined the records and found that the petitioners had previously engaged counsel and signed vakalats, undermining their claim of ignorance regarding the decree. The court noted that the minor had also signed the vakalat and had not taken steps to challenge the decree after attaining majority. Ultimately, the court concluded that the petitioners did not provide a valid explanation for the delay and dismissed the revision petition, affirming the trial court's decision. The court emphasized that the petitioners could not benefit from their own lack of diligence in pursuing the matter.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Petitioners failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of 792 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree, as they had engaged counsel and signed vakalats, indicating knowledge of the proceedings. The court held that the petitioners could not take advantage of their own inaction and dismissed the application (Paras 10-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 792 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree was sufficiently explained by the petitioners.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the Trial Court's order was upheld, with no costs awarded.
Law Points
- CPC
- Section 115
- Limitation Act
- Section 5
- exparte decree
- condonation of delay
- minority representation
