The law favors diligence over indolence; mere claims of hardship without substantial evidence do not warrant the condonation of significant delays in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. An ex-parte judgment & decree dated 13.04.2016, for specific performance, was sought to be set aside by application dated 04.01.2020, after condoning the delay of 1312 days, long after legal representatives of the 1st defendant appeared in an execution petition filed by the plaintiff.

3. We heard learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Dama Seshadri Naidu for the appellant and Sri. Gopal Shankarnarayanan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.

4. The impugned order referred to two decisions of this Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107 and H. Dohil Constructions Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Nahar Exports Limited, (2015) 1 SCC 680, both on the issue of condonation of delay and applied the principles of the former to condone the delay and allow the application, setting aside the ex-parte decree on payment of cost of Rupees One lakh and a further direction to file a written statement within a period of four weeks. The suit was also directed to be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of order. The reasoning for the exercise of such equitable jurisdiction was on the ground that the predecessor-in-interest who was the defendant in the suit and who had also half interest in the property though had appeared before the Trial Court had not filed a written statement and later died, upon which the wife and son, the legal representatives came into the picture. The contention that the Counsel who was handling the case on behalf of the deceased had taken time to hand over the files; which were misplaced, eventually handed over on 16.12.2019 soon after which the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree was filed, found favour with the learned Single Judge. The High Court reversed the detailed order of the Trial Court which refused to condone the delay on the facts coming out from the records.

5. On the subject matter of the suit, suffice it to notice that the defendants 1 and 2 jointly owned the scheduled property and the first defendant; who is now deceased and is represented by his legal representatives, executed a power of attorney in favour of the second defendant. The second defendant on his behalf and also on behalf of the first defendant executed a sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 20 lacs out of which Rs. 5 lacs were paid. The plaintiff though always willing and ready to discharge his part of the agreement, the second defendant failed so to do and also refused to turn up at the Sub Registrar’s Office where the plaintiff had gone on 14.01.2016 with the balance sale consideration; resulting in the initiation of the suit for specific performance. The first defendant, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents herein appeared but did not file a written statement. The second respondent also did not appear and the Trial Court passed judgment in the case which is produced as Annexure P-6 herein. Admittedly an execution petition was filed in which the legal representatives, the respondents herein had appeared. It was much later that the petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree was filed.

6. Sri. Naidu argued that there was absolutely no cause for the High Court to reverse the well-considered order of the Trial Court. The delay was not properly explained and the grounds taken cannot at all be countenanced. The suit was decreed on 13.04.2016 and the death of the first defendant occurred much later on 22.02.2017. The claim that first defendant was hospitalised cannot be accepted since the document produced indicated it to be a hospitalisation long after the judgment and decree. Further the very contention taken up before the trial court that the files were handed over late, also cannot be countenanced since the very same lawyer continued to represent one of the legal representatives. There is no equity in now seeking to set aside a decree of specific performance especi