The court held that the Division Bench erred in not considering...

The court held that the Division Bench erred in not considering Section 58(f) of the Act. Despite the respondent's claim of threat and coercion in executing the Agreement, the burden was on him to prove it since he admitted to signing it. The First Impugned Order suffered from legal errors and could not withstand scrutiny. Regarding the delay, the appellant's plea of engaging counsel only for the delay condonation was rightly rejected as 'fantastic' by the Division Bench. The First Impugned Order was set aside, effectively nullifying the Second Impugned Order, though it was not faulted. However, costs of Rs.1,20,000 were imposed on the appellant for wasting judicial time, to be utilized for juvenile welfare, advocate-clerks' welfare, and legal aid as directed. The appeal was allowed.

---