Heard both sides. On the previous dates of hearing as well as today, both the learned counsel have made submissions on the merits of the appeal itself as the decree, which is impugned in this appeal, is an ex parte decree.

2. Though this appeal is preferred by the defendants along with an application seeking condonation of delay viz., A.S.M.P.No.1921 of 2013, with consent of both the learned counsel, the appeal itself is being disposed of in order to save precious time of the parties and to curtail the litigation.

3. The plaintiff, who is respondent in this appeal, filed O.S.No.186 of 2007 before the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Vikarabad, for specific performance of the suit agreement. It was alleged that defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3-17 guntas in S.No.54/E at Dowlapur Village. Defendant No.1 had offered to sell the said suit land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.7,36,375/- at the rate of Rs.2,15,000/- per acre and in pursuance of the said offer the plaintiff accepted the same and paid an advance of Rs.1,10,000/- and the suit agreement, dated 06.09.2006, was executed. The parties had agreed that within one month of the said agreement, plaintiff would pay the balance amount and the defendants would execute and register the sale deed. The plaintiff alleges that he was ready and offered to pay the balance amount, but the defendants postponed the said execution and registration of the sale deed on some pretext or the other. Then the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dated 04.10.2006, and filed the present suit.

4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a common written statement admitting the ownership of defendant No.1, but denied execution of any agreement. It was also contended that notice issued prior to the suit was not served on the defendants. It was alleged that while the plaintiff’s son is carrying on business as Commission Agent in Gunj market, defendant No.1 used to sell his agricultural produce to him and for that purpose he used to obtain hand loans from him. The thumb impressions of the defendants on some papers have been obtained by the plaintiff’s son and the same were used for fabricating the suit agreement. Defendants, therefore, denied the execution of the suit agreement as well as receiving of any advance.

5. In view of the said pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the defendant No.1 entered into an agreement of sale and received Rs.1,10,000/- as earnest money?

2. Whether the plaintiff was and is ready to perform her part of the contract?

3. Whether the agreement of sale is forged and fabricated document?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale?

5. Whether defendant No.2 is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration without knowledge of agreement of sale?

6. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?”

6. While the plaintiff examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A9, it appears that the defendants did not adduce any evidence and their counsel reported no instructions when P.W.3 was being examined. The suit therefore was decreed on the basis of evidence adduced by the plaintiff and in the absence of any contest or evidence by the defendants, the said decree, according to the appellants/defendants, is an ex parte decree. However, in stead of approaching the trial court with an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, “C.P.C.”), the present regular appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. is filed by the defendants seeking condonation of delay.

7. The affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation viz., A.S.M.P.No.1921 of 2013, states that though P.Ws.1 and 2 were cross-examined by their counsel, the counsel straight away reported no instructions when P.W.3 was being examined and thereafter there was hardly any opportunity for the defendants. None of the said development was known to the