The court emphasized the necessity of providing sufficient cause for delay in legal proceedings and the importance of vigilance in pursuing appeals.

JUDGMENT :

(Rajesh Bindal, J.)

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order¹[Order dated 27.02.2024] of the High Court²[High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior] allowing the interim application³[I.A. No. 2677 of 2021] 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 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’), without assigning any reason.

3. Briefly, the facts are that husband of respondent no. 1 and father of Respondent no.2, one late Mangaliya Kushwaha⁴[Mangaliya Kushwaha died on 11.04.2015] entered into an agreement to sell⁵[Agreement to sell dated 25.06.2005] the land bearing Survey No.1169 measuring 0.146 hectares, Survey No.1170 measuring 0.334 hectares, Survey No.1171 measuring 0.899 hectares situated at Village Karhiya, Tehsil Chinuar, District-Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’) with the appellant herein for total sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-, and received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as earnest money. As per the terms of the said agreement to sell, late Mangaliya Kushwaha was to execute the sale deed on or before 25.06.2006 upon receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-

4. The appellant filed a civil suit⁶[Civil Suit No. 7A/09] against late Mangaliya Kushwaha seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell before Trial Court⁷[Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh]. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2009.

5. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree, late Mangaliya Kushwaha preferred appeal⁸[First Appeal No. 41 of 2010] before High Court. As court fee was not affixed with the appeal memo and other defects were found in the appeal, the court directed him to cure the same. Despite repeated opportunities he failed to deposit court fee and cure the defects. Resultantly, the said appeal was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 22.08.2013 recording reasons that appellant therein failed to deposit court fee as per order dated 15.07.2013 and also for want of prosecution.

6. The appellant filed Petition⁹[Case No. 7A/2009] for execution of the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2009 and execution of sale deed in his favour. During pendency of the execution petition, Mangaliya Kushwaha died on 11.04.2015. The appellant filed an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC for bringing legal representatives of late Mangaliya Kushwaha, namely Santobai w/o Late Mangaliya Kushwaha, Hakim Singh, Kalyan Singh, Devi Singh, Smt. Nattho w/o Late Shri Babulal Kushwah and Smt. Sona w/o Late Shri Bhavani Kushwah, on record. Notices were issued. As per service report, the legal representatives of late Mangaliya Kushwaha refused to accept summons. As the legal representative of late Mangaliya Kushwaha failed to appear before the executing court and raise objection to the draft sale deed, the court vide order dated 18.05.2018 directed execution of sale deed in favour of the appellant. The sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant by the reader of the Court namely R.K. Jain under the authority of the court and the same was registered on 28.07.2018. Subsequently, vide order dated 03.07.2019 the Tehsildar directed patwari to mutate the name of the appellant in revenue records and the appellant was put in possession of the suit property.

7. On 05.06.2021 the respondents filed an application¹⁰[Miscellaneous Civil Case No.612 of 2021] under Order XLI Rule 19 of CPC seeking setting-aside of the order dated 22.08.2013 and restoration of the First Appeal No.41 of 2010. The respondents also filed an application¹¹[I.A. No.2677 of 2021] 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 filing of the appeal