The Supreme Court set aside an Order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing the application seeking condonation of delay of 2,422 days after finding the same to be passed in a cryptic manner without recording any reason.

The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order of the High Court allowing the interim application filed by the respondents seeking condonation of delay of 2,422 days in filing an application under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The Division Bench comprising Justice M.M.Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal said, “Taking into consideration the dates and the pleading in the application for condonation of delay filed by the respondents/applicants, it was evident that the respondents had the knowledge of the decree, filing of appeal and dismissal thereof.”

Advocate Ishita M Puranik represented the Appellant.

Factual Background

The husband of respondent no. 1 and father of Respondent no.2, one late Mangaliya Kushwaha entered into an agreement to sell the suit property-land with the appellant for a total sale consideration of ₹2,00,000 and received a sum of ₹1,50,000 as earnest money. The appellant filed a civil suit against late Mangaliya Kushwaha seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell before the Trial Court. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court.

When Mangaliya Kushwaha filed an appeal before the High Court, the court fee was not affixed and other defects were found in the appeal. Resultantly, the said appeal was dismissed by the High Court. The appellant filed a Petition for execution of the judgment and execution of the sale deed in his favour. During the pendency of the execution petition, Mangaliya Kushwaha died and the appellant filed an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC for bringing his legal representatives on record but the representatives refused to accept the summons. However, the Respondents failed to appear on the dates assigned for the hearing.

The sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application under Order XLI Rule 19 of CPC seeking restoration of the First Appeal. The respondents also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in preferring the application under Order XLI Rule 19 of CPC stating therein that they were not having knowledge about the filing of the appeal by late Mangaliya Kushwaha and dismissal of the same.

Reasoning

Noting that the litigation commenced in the year 2008, the Supreme Court held that the matter couldn’t be remitted back to the High Court for consideration of the application filed by the respondents/applicants afresh. “As has already been noticed, in the impugned order the High Court recorded no reason for condoning huge delay in filing application for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed for nonprosecution and failure to deposit requisite court fee on 22.08.2013”, it said.

The Bench noticed that from the averments made in the application, it was evident that the period of delay, condonation of which was sought, had not been mentioned. “From a perusal of the aforesaid contents of the application we find that the delay in filing the application seeking restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed for non-prosecution and non-payment of requisite court-fee, was 2,422 days, which had not been explained sufficiently by the respondents/applicants seeking condonation of delay. The High Court without recording any reason whatsoever and by passing a cryptic order had allowed the same”, it added.

The order passed by the Executing Court recorded that notices sent to the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor were returned back with the report of refusal to accept the notice. The draft sale deed was placed on record by the appellant/decree-holder but no one represented the legal representatives of deceased judgment debtor.

“It is the pleaded case of the respondents/applicants in the application for condonation of delay that they came to know about the proceedings, when mutation was recorded in the name of the present appellant. Not only this, he had been put in possession of the suit property in execution of decree. Still, they had taken about two years in filing the application seeking restoration of appeal, for which we do not find any case is made out as the party has to remain vigilant to pursue his/their case”, the Bench said.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court allowing the application for condonation of delay.

Cause Title: Surendra Kumar Jain v. Santobai & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 230)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates Ishita M Puranik, Jigisha Agarwal, Suresh Kumar Bhan, Karan Gupta, AOR Praveen Swarup

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice MM SundreshJustice Rajesh BindalCode of Civil Procedure

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.