The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Telangana High Court as it proceeded automatically to restore a suit for specific performance and observed that the legal remedies concerning setting aside the ex-parte decree and condoning the delay are different and independent.

The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the appellants challenging the order of the Telangana High Court whereby the exparte decree was set aside and the suit was restored.

Directing the Trial Court to hear and dispose of the application on its merit, the Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra asserted, “This decision is for the reason that the circumstances, justification, consideration and legal remedies for ‘condoning the delay’ on the one hand and ‘setting aside the ex-parte decree’ on the other are different and must be dealt with independently.”

AOR Raavi Yogesh Venkata represented the Appellants while AOR Tatini Basu represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The appellants, plaintiffs in the suit alleged that the first respondent, the father of the second respondent, purchased certain property in 1992 through a sale deed and in the year 2012 and gifted a part of it to his daughter. In the year 2015, both the father and the daughter executed an agreement of sale in favour of the appellants for a total consideration of Rs 1,89,75,000. It was alleged by the appellants that, apart from an advance payment of Rs 5 lakh on the date of the agreement, the appellants paid an additional amount of Rs 40 lakh to the respondents. However, the respondents issued a legal notice cancelling the agreement of sale. The appellants had to approach the Civil Court to institute a suit for specific performance.

As the respondents failed to participate in the proceedings diligently, the Trial Court passed an ex parte decree and further directed the respondents to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the appellants within six months after the appellants deposited the balance of the sale consideration. The respondents approached the Trial Court for condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree and for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The Trial Court refused to condone the delay of 939 days and also dismissed the application for setting aside ex-parte decree. When the respondents approached the High Court, the High Court allowed the revision petition by which the delay was condoned, the exparte decree was set aside and the suit was restored. This is how the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs in the suit before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

Expounding on the law relating to condonation of delay, the Bench explained, “To start with, facts and events relating to passing of an ex-parte decree are distinct from the facts and events relating to the delayed filing of the application for setting aside of the ex-parte decree. Secondly, the procedure for setting aside the ex-parte decree will again be distinct from the procedure for condoning the delayed filing of the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. Thirdly, the adjudication and determination of a court with respect to setting aside the ex-parte decree are independent of the adjudication with respect to condoning the delay. Finally, the remedies against these orders are independent and one remedy would not subsume the other. They must be adopted and pursued independently.”

It further added, “The order passed by the High Court setting aside the ex-parte decree when no revision is filed against the said order of the Trial Court in I.A. No. 1163 of 2021 cannot be sustained.”

The Bench noticed that the High Court proceeded to condone the delay after noting that the property is valuable and that the respondent's father and daughter must have at least one opportunity to contest the suit. “The High Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction and concluded that the delay in filing the application in setting aside the ex-parte decree should be condoned. We are not inclined to interfere with this order in exercise of our power under Article 136 of the Constitution. However, the later portion of the above referred order is unsustainable as the High Court proceeded to automatically restore the suit and directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously”, it noted.

The Bench also held, “The High Court, while disposing of I.A. No. 493 of 2021 has not applied its mind about the justification for setting aside the ex-parte decree. In this view of the matter, we set aside the directions of the High Court to the extent of restoration of the suit and the consequent direction that the suit should be disposed of within six months from the date of the order.”

Thus, allowing the application in part, the Bench affirmed the finding of the High Court on the aspect of condoning the delay and set aside the conclusion of the High Court that the suit is restored. The Bench thus directed the Trial Court to take up the application and dispose it preferably within two months. “The appellants shall be entitled to cost quantified at Rs. 50,000/- payable by the respondents. With these observations the appeal is disposed of”, it ordered.

Cause Title: C Prabhakar Rao and Anr v. Sama Mahipal Reddy and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 311)

Appearance:

Appellants: AOR Raavi Yogesh Venkata, Advocates Twinkle Rathi, Kotte Venkata

Respondents: Advocate Byrapaneni Suyodhan, AOR Tatini Basu

Click here to read/download Judgment




Justice Pamidighantam Sri NarasimhaJustice Manoj Misra

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.