Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India set aside a High Court order that had condoned a significant delay in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree for specific performance. The Bench, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and  Justice K. Vinod Chandran restored the Trial Court’s decision, which had denied the application for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court recorded that there was no valid explanation for the extensive delay and stated that the plaintiff’s right to enforcement of the decree should not be disturbed after nearly a decade.

The High Court had previously set aside the ex-parte decree upon the payment of costs amounting to ₹1 lakh and had directed the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant to file a written statement within four weeks. The Supreme Court stated that the grounds for condonation of delay were not justified in law.

The matter arose from a suit for specific performance based on an agreement to sell a property. The legal representatives of the deceased first defendant sought to challenge the ex-parte decree passed against them, citing reasons related to the alleged misplacement of case files by their legal counsel. The Supreme Court, after examining the records, stated that this claim was unsatisfactory.

The case concerned a property jointly owned by two defendants. The first defendant, who later passed away, had executed a power of attorney in favor of the second defendant. Acting on this authority, the second defendant entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff for a total consideration of ₹20 lakhs, out of which ₹5 lakhs was paid as an advance. The plaintiff stated that he remained willing and ready to fulfill his obligations under the agreement, whereas the second defendant failed to execute the sale deed and did not appear before the Sub-Registrar’s Office on the appointed date of January 14, 2016.

Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance. The first defendant appeared before the Trial Court but did not file a written statement, while the second defendant did not participate in the proceedings. The Trial Court granted an ex-parte decree in favor of the plaintiff on April 13, 2016.

An execution petition was filed by the plaintiff to enforce the decree. The legal representatives of the first defendant appeared in the execution proceedings in 2018. However, they filed an application seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree only on January 4, 2020, after condoning a delay of 1,312 days. The application was based on the argument that the legal representatives had only recently obtained the case files from their previous counsel, who had misplaced them. The Trial Court rejected this explanation and refused to condone the delay.

The High Court referred to Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and H. Dohil Constructions Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Nahar Exports Ltd. and recorded that equitable jurisdiction was warranted due to the hardship faced by the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. It allowed the application to set aside the ex-parte decree upon payment of costs and directed an expedited trial.

The Supreme Court stated that while the principle of equity allows some leeway in condoning delays, such discretion must be exercised with caution. The Bench recorded:

"There is no explanation for the deceased first defendant to have not contested the matter, the joint ownership with the other defendant and the power of attorney executed in his favour as also the sale agreement being admitted."

The Court stated that the first defendant had the opportunity to contest the suit during his lifetime but did not do so. His death occurred nearly a year after the ex-parte decree was passed, yet neither he nor his legal representatives took any steps to challenge it at an earlier stage.

Regarding the claim that the case files were misplaced, the Supreme Court stated:

"A frivolous contention has been raised that the lawyer took time to return the files; which contention is also a bland statement made without the date on which they approached the lawyer being specified."

The Court recorded that the legal representatives had appeared in the execution proceedings in 2018, where they were made aware of the ex-parte decree. Despite this, they waited for more than a year before filing the application to set aside the decree.

The Court further stated:

"The law favours the diligent and not the indolent."

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Trial Court’s decision, thereby rejecting the application for condonation of delay.

Case Title: K. Ramasamy v. R. Nallammal & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 310
Case Number: S.L.P. (C) No. 2177 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran

[Read/Download order]