The main legal point established in the judgment is that delays in filing appeals should be justified with credible reasons, and false statements and lack of diligence in proceedings may lead to the dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT : -

1. This Second Appeal is filed by subsequent purchaser challenging the judgment and order passed by the District Judge thereby not condoning the delay of approximately 3½ years in filing the appeal before the District Court.

FACTS :

2. The plaintiff in the lower Court, who is respondent no. 1 herein, had filed suit for partition, declaration and separate possession against her two sisters. The said suit was decreed and the trial Court had granted a decree of 1/3rd share in the suit property to the plaintiff therein and so also 1/3rd share to each of the defendants – two sisters. So also, the trial Court declared that the sale deeds executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 5 and sale deed executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 3 is not binding on the share of plaintiff in the suit property. The said decree of trial Court was passed on 22.01.2015. The present appellants were represented by their advocate in the trial Court.

3. Thereafter, since there was no appeal filed, the original plaintiff filed execution application before the trial Court. The present appellants, who are the subsequent purchasers, appeared in the execution application proceedings, however, they did not file any kind of appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Much later on 30.07.2018, the present appellants/subsequent purchasers filed appeal along with application for condonation of delay. The said application for condonation of delay was heard and dismissed by the learned appellate Court. Hence, the appellants herein have preferred the present second appeal challenging the order of not condoning the delay of 3½ years.

SUBMISSIONS : -

4. The advocate for the appellants submitted before this Court that even though the appellants had engaged a lawyer in the lower court there was no communication between them, therefore, the present appellants were not able to take steps within the prescribed time. So also, it has been argued that out of the three appellants, appellant no. 3 (original defendant no. 6) was looking after the proceedings on behalf of the three appellants who are subsequent purchasers. However, he fell ill due to Malaria and, therefore, he was not able to take steps. Doctor’s certificate in that behalf was enclosed with the application for condonation of delay. As far as other two appellants are concerned, they used to travel to Gujarat from Maharashtra for work purpose, hence, they were not able to take any kind of steps.

5. It is further argued by the appellants’ advocate that delay was not purposeful and the courts should not be hyper technical in such matters and the delay should have been condoned and the appeal should have been heard on merits. The advocate for the appellants referred to two judgments to buttress his submissions,

(i) Ram Nath Sao Alias Ram Nth Sahu and others Versus Gobardhan Sao and others reported in (2002) 3 SCC 195, more particularly, referred paragraph nos. 7 to 12 of the said judgment.

(ii) Dr. Yashwantrao Bhaskarrao Deshmukh Versus Raghunath Kisan Saindane reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 914.

He further argued that in both the aforesaid judgments, the Supreme Court held that delay in filing an appeal should not be taken more technically and approach should be more lenient towards the parties and bona fides of the parties should always be taken into consideration. Hence, he prayed that the present second appeal be considered and be allowed. He also furnished a list of grounds to be framed on “substantial question of law” for admitting the Second Appeal.

6. Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the appeal has been filed only by subsequent purchasers and no appeal has been filed by the original defendants (sisters). The trial Court by it’s judgment and order has protected the original plaintiff only as far as her 1/3rd share in the suit property. The advocate for the respondent also furnished certified copy of Roznama of executing Court. He further ar