Case Name: Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran & Anr. Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). ___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17575 of 2023) Date of Judgment: 14 May 2025 Quorum: Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and B.V. Nagarthna
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The appeal arises out of a sale agreement dated 17.08.2015 between the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 for the sale of a ₹3 lakh property in Nainarkoil @ Naganathasamoothiram Village.The Appellant initiated a suit for specific performance when Respondent No. 1 defaulted in executing the sale deed. Respondent No. 1 sold the said property to Respondent No. 2 during the pendency of the suit on 26.11.2015. Both the Respondents defaulted in appearing before court, and the trial court had to pass an ex parte decree on 07.02.2017. Execution proceedings had resulted in a sale deed being executed in favor of the Appellant. Respondents then made applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, and the trial court had rescinded the ex parte decree on 19.08.2019. The Appellant’s petitions for revision before the High Court were granted on 09.11.2021, and the Supreme Court’s rejection of Respondents’ Special Leave Petitions on 25.02.2022 upheld the ex parte decree. Notwithstanding finality, Respondents filed a belated appeal, and the First Appellate Court rejected their delay condonation petition on 08.02.2023.On 25.04.2023, the High Court granted the 1116 days delay subject to conditions.The Appellant then appealed against this order in the current appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the trial court was in error in setting aside the ex-parte decree on the basis of the applications made by the Respondents under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC?
- Whether the Respondents’ delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and the High Court’s order condoning the delay of 1116 days was correct?
- Whether the High Court’s directive that permission to file for delay in the appeal is in accordance with the principles of justice, especially in view of the ex-parte decree being upheld by the Supreme Court?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Order IX Rule 13, Order XLI Rule 3A, Section 96(2) and 151 of CPC. Section 5 and 14 of Limitation Act, 1963
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
The appellant contended that the respondents could not offer a reasonable explanation for the delay in approaching the Court seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC as well as in making the appeal under Section 96(2) CPC. The delays of 467 and 712 days had already been held as unjustifiable by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court in the prior proceedings and therefore cannot be reopened. This was also argued on the basis that the High Court erred in applying *N. Mohan v. R. Madhu* (2020), since the facts that were present there were not tenable here. The respondents of the current case had been well served and taken part in the trial. This ruling in N. Mohan did not pronounce a binding rule for condoning such inordinate delay. The appellant argued that the First Appellate Court correctly rejected the application for condonation of 1116 days’ delay, and the High Court erred in interfering therewith. The impugned judgment is hence incorrect and calls for interference.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The respondents had contended that their absence before the Trial Court was neither willful or intentional, and enough cause for the delay was provided. The High Court, being so satisfied with such an explanation, rightly waived the delay and passed the impugned order dated 25.04.2023. They urged that the High Court properly applied *N. Mohan v. R. Madhu* (2020), since the facts were on similar lines. It was highlighted that Order IX Rule 13 CPC proceedings and Section 96(2) CPC appeals are on different legal pedestals, as elucidated by the Supreme Court in *Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar* (2005). The respondents also referred to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, alleging that the 1116-day delay has to be excluded as they were bona fide availing remedies under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and connected proceedings. The High Court aptly applied this maxim. They also pointed to their obedience to the directive by the High Court to deposit ₹1 lakh in proof of bona fides. Respondent No. 2 also has a valid registered title over the suit property and has been in quiet possession since 2015. Therefore, the balance of convenience and equities are in their favour, and irreparable damage would be done if the appeal is granted.
ANALYSIS
The main point of contention in this appeal was whether the delay of 1116 days in filing an appeal could be condoned. The Respondents had previously failed to reserve an ex-parte decree and had their previous applications for condonation of delay rejected up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the facts and procedure, observing that the Respondents had been duly served, appeared and submitted written statements in the original case but later did not appear further to result in the ex-parte decree.The High Court had waived the delay on the strength of a precedent (N. Mohan), but the Supreme Court held that the facts in that case were materially different.In N. Mohan, service of summons had not been effectually served, while in the present case the Respondents had evidently taken part before defaulting.The Court also noted that the very same reasons presented in the present delay application were already presented and refused in previous proceedings, including by the Supreme Court itself in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2054 & 2055 of 2022. Hence, the Court held that the same reasons being rehearsed without new material amounted to an abuse of process. The Court reaffirmed settled principles: that courts have to first determine the bona fides of explanations for delay, that the law of limitation has to be applied strictly, and that justice cannot be attained by exhibiting liberality at the expense of the opposite party.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s direction condoning the 1116-day delay on the grounds that there was no new reason from the respondents and terming the reiterated reasons an abuse of process. The appeal was upheld.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court once again established the principle that procedural discipline and restriction legislation need to be maintained for the sake of certainty and fairness in adjudication. In the present case, since the Respondents have presented no new explanation for the excessive delay already discovered to be not convincing in the previous rounds, the Court ruled that it would be condoning negligence and denigrating the judicial process by allowing the delay. The appeal was accordingly granted, and the High Court’s order was reversed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY ADI MEHTA
