TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Court. 4. The facts of the case reveal that a sale agreement was executed on 17.08.2015 between the plaintiff (hereinafter "Appellant") and defendant (hereinafter "Respondent No. 1") for a consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs in respect of the suit property situated at Nainarkoil @ Naganathasamoothiram Village. The Respondent No. 1 in the present case failed to execute the sale deed pursuant to the sale agreement dated 17.08.2015 and in those circumstances, the Appellant preferred a civil suit before the Sub Court, Paramakudi, on 21.09.2015 i.e. O.S. No. 110/2015, praying for relief of specific performance of sale agreement dated 17.08.2015. The facts further reveal that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the Respondent No. 1 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant no. 2 (hereinafter "Respondent No. 2") on 26.11.2015. In the civil suit i.e. O.S. No. 110/2015, both the defendants filed their written statement; however, at a later stage, stopped appearing in the matter and in those circumstances, the defendants were proceeded against exparte on 07.02.2017. The trial court finally passed an ex-parte decree on 07.02.2017 and the Appellant thereafter preferred an Execution Pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o invested the balance amount together with the stamp duty, I am inclined to intervene in favour of the petitioners by directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the respondent. This amount shall be paid directly to the respondent on or before 07.06.2023. Subject to such payment, the application filed by the petitioners in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 to condone the delay before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram, shall stand allowed. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, shall number the appeal and dispose it on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of nine months in accordance with law. The petitioners shall report compliance by filing a suitable memo before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram." 8. The appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the High Court allowing the civil revision has preferred the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no clear explanation is forthcoming for the delay that was caused in the first round of litigation while filing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., after dismissal of the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for condonation of delay, even though the appeal filed under Section 96(2) of the CPC against the ex-parte decree dated 7.2.2017 was maintainable, the huge delay of 1116 days of filing the said appeal cannot be condoned without proper explanations. 13. Further, it was submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate the conduct of the respondents/defendants. There is no bar for them to file the Appeal under Section 96(2) of the CPC against the ex-parte decree while pursuing the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for condonation of delay. Therefore, in any case, the impugned judgment is erroneous, perverse, and warrants interference; it ought to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS 14. Learned counsel for respondents/defendants vehemently argued that the non-representation before the Trial Court by respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 and respondent no. 2/defendant no. 2 was neither wilful nor wanton. 15. It was further submitted that a plausible explanation has been given by the Respondents for the delay in preferring the said pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iling the condonation of delay petition, the learned counsel referred to Section 14 of the Limitation Act and argued that in the instant case, the Respondents after exhausting their legal rights under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC with informed legal counselling decided to exercise their legal right to refer the first appeal as against the final decretal order and judgment passed by the Trial Court. The time taken during the pendency of the Petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC and also the revision petitions before the various judicial forums necessarily have to be excluded. A bare reading of Section 14 of the Limitation Act enjoins upon the adjudicating authorities to exclude the time thus taken during the pendency of petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC needs to be taken into consideration for condoning the delay in filing the first appeal and, therefore, the High Court rightly cited and discussed the said provision and was pleased to pass the impugned order dated 25.04.2023 in favour of the Respondents. 19. It is further submitted that the High Court vide impugned order directed the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the Appellant. Accordingly, the Resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ution of the aforesaid suit. In response, they entered an appearance and filed their written statement, thereby submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. However, despite being present in the initial stage of proceedings, Respondents choose not to further appear before the Trial Court continuously. Consequently, the Trial Court was constrained to proceed ex-parte against them. Further, it is pertinent to note that the High Court has relied upon N. Mohan (supra), while passing the impugned order, however, on comparison, the facts of the said case are different from the case at hand. In the said case, the summons to the Respondents was sent to their old address, and the same was returned unserved, and subsequently, the ex-parte decree was passed. In stark contrast, the present case is distinguishable since the summons was duly served and the respondents/defendants not only appeared but actively participated by filing their written statement. 26. Therefore, the dictum in N. Mohan (supra) cannot be applied to the instant matter but the High Court placed reliance upon the aforementioned judgment leading to the misappreciation of the facts. Consequently, the impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. 5.1 In the case of Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157, in paragraph 14, it is observed and held as under: "The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The Limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy s....