A.V. Chandrashekara, J.

1. The present appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 1/1999, which was pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bailhongal and confirmation of the findings of the O.S. No. 1/1999 in regular appeal No. 18/2008 filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. read with Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C..

2. Appellant herein was the lone defendant in an original Suit bearing O.S. No. 1/1999 filed by the respondents-plaintiff for the reliefs of specific performance of contract based on an agreement of sale stated to have been executed by the defendant in their favour relating to 4 acres 20 guntas of land in respect of R.S. No. 102/1 of Madanbhavi village, Taluka Bailhongal for a total consideration of Rs. 2,25,000/-. On 06.01.1996 defendant/appellant is stated to have executed an agreement of sale agreeing to sell the entire suit property for a total consideration of Rs. 2,25,000/-. In this regard, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is stated to have been received as advance on 06.01.1996 in the presence of the attesters who have attested the said document. A sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- being the balance of consideration was expected to be paid at the time of registration by the plaintiff to the defendant. Further case of the plaintiff is that, schedule property was handed over to him on the very day of execution of the agreement of sale and therefore, he has been in possession of the property uninterruptedly from that date.

3. As defendant did not come forward to execute a regular sale deed, they had to get a legal notice issued through his advocate on 07.03.1996. In spite of receipt of the notice, the defendant did not come forward to execute a sale deed and therefore, he had to file a suit seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract or alternatively, for refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- earnest money paid to the defendant with interest at 24% p.a. from 06.01.1996.

4. Defendant was served with notice and appeared through an advocate and filed his written statement. Plaintiff is examined as P.W. 1 and one Shivanagouda Chanabasappa Marigoudar is examined as P.W. 2 on his behalf. 4 documents have been got marked. Both the witnesses have not been cross-examined. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendant.

5. On hearing the arguments from the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and on analysing the evidence, the learned trial Judge has chosen to decree the suit as prayed for, by answering issues 1 to 5 in the affirmative. Consequently, the suit is decreed as prayed for and relief of specific performance is granted. Against the said judgment and decree, defendant chose to file a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. with a request to set aside the said judgment on the ground, that the said judgment was an ex-parte decree for all practical purposes, by filing an objection in Misc. No. 09.2001. The said petition was dismissed after contest on 15.09.2003, as against which Misc. First Appeal was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No. 6910/2013 and the said appeal was also dismissed after contest on 12.10.2006. A review petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka with a request to review the said petition. The said review petition was also dismissed on 28.08.2007.

6. After exhausting all the remedies available under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. at various levels, the defendant chose to file a Regular First Appeal before this Court in RFA No. 2181/2007. The said RFA was returned with a direction to re-present the same before the proper forum. Accordingly, the appeal memo was returned to the appellant-defendant and it was presented to the Court of Principal District Judge, Belgaum and appeal came to be numbered as R.A. No. 18/2008. Notice was issued to the respondents-plaintiff. An application came to be filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requesting the Court to condone the delay of 6 years 4 months 21 days in filing the app