SUPREME COURT REITERATES: NO CONDONATION FOR INORDINATE DELAY WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE

Case Name: K. RAMASAMY Vs R. NALLAMMAL & ORS.

Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO.______________ OF 2025

(@S.L.P. (C) No. 2177 of 2024)

Date: MARCH 03, 2025.

Quorum: JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN

FACTS:

The plaintiff initiated a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale made by Defendant 2 on his own behalf and that of Defendant 1 (since deceased). Both Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 were jointly owners of the property. Power of Attorney was given by Defendant 1 in favor of Defendant 2 who signed the agreement for a consideration of ₹20 lakhs on which ₹5 lakhs was paid in advance. Defendant 1 had appeared in the Trial Court but had not presented a written statement, resulting in an ex-parte decree on 13.04.2016. Defendant 1 expired on 22.02.2017. Legal representatives had appeared in the execution proceedings in 2018 but had not objected to the decree. They filed for waiver of the decree after 1312 days delay in 2020 on the grounds of reasons such as hospitalization of Defendant 1 and loss of case papers with lawyer. The application was dismissed by the Trial Court. It was granted by the High Court condoning the delay on the grounds of equity. This order of condonation was challenged by the plaintiff (appellant) before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1.) Whether the High Court has a reasonable reason to execute delay of 1312 days in presenting an application for setting aside ex-parte decree?

2.) Whether the reason provided by the legal representative is sufficient under law?

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

1.) Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908: Permits setting aside an ex-parte decree in case there is reasonable ground.

2.) Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963: Allows condonation of delay where there is reasonable cause.

3.) Case laws cited:

 Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107. Dohil Constructions Company Pvt.Ltd. v. Nahar Exports Ltd. (2015) 1 SCC 680.

 

ARGUMENTS:

 

APPELLANT CONTENTION:

1. The delay was unexplained, inordinate, and deliberate.
2. Defendant 1 had arrived but did not oppose; he died almost a year after the decree.
3. The legal representatives were aware of the decree since they appeared in execution proceedings in 2018.
4. The lawyer losing files’ plea was meritless; certified copies could have been obtained.
5. Plaintiff paid the entire consideration amount; there was material enhancement in property value, and further delay caused undue hardship.

RESPONDENT CONTENTION:

1. Defendant 1 was hospitalized and beset by Parkinsonism, rendering effective contest impossible.
2. Delay was due to the lawyer losing case files, which were received only in December 2019.
3. There was actual hardship; equity demands setting aside the decree.
4. Agreed to deposit the advance amount received by the plaintiff to secure his interest.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court further considered the delay and the reasons for it. The Supreme Court noticed the following points: 

1. The first defendant entered appearance in the suit but did not contest it, for there was hardly any substantial proof of the illness set up. 
2. Defendant No.1 hospitalized long after the decree; medical reasons thus appear to be a weak ground.
3. While the legal representatives opined execution proceedings from 2018, the decree was notified to them, yet there was inaction for over a year. 
4. The explanation for the tape being misplaced by the learned counsel was vague, not substantiated, and no dates or proof were forthcoming. 
5. In the coming to a decision before the Trial Court, the detailed reasoning refusing the condonation was based on factual findings and a correct application of law. 
6. The High Court committed the error of looking at equitable considerations whereas the facts of willful negligence and negligence were not being considered.

JUDGMENT:

The High Court’s order condoning the delay was set aside by the Supreme Court. The Trial Court’s order rejecting the application for condonation of delay was restored. The Court ruled that law prefers the diligent, not the lazy, and no adequate cause for the delay was proved.

 

CONCLUSION:

Appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court made a ruling that the delay of 1312 days was willful and unexplained, with no reasonable grounds shown. The exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of the High Court was not really justified. The order of the Trial Court, which refused to set aside the ex-parte decree, was restored coping with the issue of diligence and speed in litigation.

 

“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 MARTHALA JOSHIKA REDDY