Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 462
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
Pannalal Rathore & Another
Versus
M/s. W.H Deeth (Ballabgarh) & Co.
I.A. No. 7327 of 2012 in CS(OS) No. 1094 of 2012
Decided On : 12-02-2014
For the Plaintiffs:Anjali Manish, Advocate.
For the Defendant:L.D. Adlakha, Ripu Adlakha, S.B. Sharma, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of strong grounds for condonation of delay in re-filing, especially when the delay exceeds the prescribed time limit.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - Section 151 CPC, Section 5 of Limitation Act - 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - [CS(OS) No.1094/2012] - [Section 151 CPC, Section 5 of Limitation Act, 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 151 CPC, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court emphasized the importance of condoning delay in re-filing and highlighted the need for strong grounds for condonation of delay, especially in cases where the delay exceeds the prescribed time limit. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and the specific circumstances of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale against the defendant company. They also filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the suit, citing reasons related to compromise talks and the defendant's suit for possession. The defendant raised objections regarding technical defects and lack of sufficient grounds for condonation of delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had made a strong prima facie case for grant of ad-interim injunction and that the balance of convenience lay in their favor. The court restrained the defendant from creating any third-party interest in the suit property.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in filing the suit, the grounds for condonation of delay, and the technical objections raised by the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the plaintiffs' strong prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and the need to prevent irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiffs. The court also emphasized the importance of strong grounds for condonation of delay in re-filing.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiffs' application for condonation of delay, citing the plaintiffs' efforts to resolve disputes and the fact that the suit was originally filed within the prescribed period. The delay of 269 days in re-filing was condoned, subject to the payment of costs by the plaintiffs to the defendant.
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for specific performance of the written agreement of sale dated 12th June, 2008 against the defendant company in respect of the property located at premises bearing No.GF-I, Ground Floor, No.75-76, Manisha Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) having a total covered area of 1067 square feet.
2. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 151 CPC read with Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 269 days in filing of the suit. Admittedly, the suit was filed in the Registry on 3rd June, 2011 which is within limitation. The Registry raised objections on 17th June, 2011 and the plaintiffs collected the papers from the Registry in order to clear the defects. The case of the plaintiffs is that since the defendant proposed for a compromise to the plaintiffs in the suit filed by the defendant for possession, the delay has happened in refilling of the case. It appears from the record that the defendant had been taking adjournments in its suit informing the Court about the compromise talks and since the plaintiff No.1 is resident of Tamil Nadu and the plaintiff No.2 is resident of USA, it took some time for the proposal of settlement given by the defendant and in the meanwhile, the delay in refilling has occurred.
3. It is submitted that the said delay is neither wilful nor deliberate and the same has occurred only due to the above mentioned circumstances.
4. By order dated 13th February, 2013, the liberty was sought by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs from the Court to file a better affidavit in support of his application and the same was filed on 26th May, 2013. The time for reply was sought by the defendant on 25th October, 2013. But it appears from the record that no reply to the application or affidavit has been filed by the defendant. In the affidavit, it was reiterated that after collecting the relevant papers from the Registry, the same were filed on 19th April, 2012 with a delay of 269 days in view of the reasons that talks for compromise were going on between the parties which is also reflected in orders passed on 8th July, 2011, 3rd October, 2011 and 1st December, 2011 in the suit filed by the defendant against the plaintiffs for possession. The talks of compromise continued till February, 2013 and the matter was even referred to Mediation Centre. Under these circumstances, the delay has occurred in re-filing in the suit.
5. No reply to the application has been filed by the defendant despite of order. The learned counsel for the defendant has orally made his submissions and raised various technical defects in purchasing the court fee by the plaintiffs and in the plaint itself and argued that no sufficient grounds are made in the application for condonation of delay in re-filing.
Counsel has also referred to Gautam Associates vs. Food Corporation of India, 2009 (111) DRJ 744. Relevant paras 26, 27 and 30 of the said judgment read as under:
“26. In my view, in accordance with the Original Side rules of this Court, as set out above, the occasion for this Court to consider condonation of delay in re-filing will arise only in a chamber appeal, if any, preferred against the order of the Registrar, declining to register the plaint/petition on the date of first institution. Unless, such an appeal is preferred, the order of the Registrar declining registration is final.
27. In the present case, the Registrar, on 2nd May, 2003 declined the registration dating back to the date of first institution by insisting upon the petitioner to file an application for condonation of delay in refiling. The remedy of the petitioner against such an order was to prefer a chamber appeal which the petitioner did not do. The said order of the Registrar declining registration dating back to the date of first institution has since attained a finality and this Court cannot now treat the institution
