IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced that the burden of proving 'sufficient cause' for delay lies with the appellant, and mere claims of ignorance are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

(Manoj Kumar Garg, J.) :

The present first appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Civil Original Case No. 17/2019 whereby, the suit for specific performance of agreement dt. 09.09.2015 has been decided ex-parte.

2. The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 09.09.2015 against the appellants-defendants. The appellants did not appear before the learned trial court despite the plaintiff being ready and willing to get the deed executed in his favour, therefore, the learned trial court proceeded ex parte on 12.07.2019 and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 07.12.2019, on the basis of statement of P.W. 1. The said statement mentioned that there weren’t any documents to show that the appellants gave assurance to the respondent-plaintiff to execute the sale deed after depositing the amount in the bank after selling out the rabi crop in 2018. It was further argued that no whisper of evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff before the learned trial court that on 13.05.2019 he appeared before the Sub Registrar for getting the sale deed executed. Therefore, the Judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is perverse, contrary to law and is liable to be set aside.

3. The present appeal has been listed in ‘Defect’ category as the same is barred by delay of 1302 days. The appellants have filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Notices of application u/s 5 of Limitation Act were issued to the respondent who has filed reply to application.

4. Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and decree was passed by the court below on 07.12.2019 but the appellants being illiterate persons had no knowledge about the said judgment and decree. It is further submitted that the signature of the appellants was taken by the process server and they were not informed by him about the suit proceedings, nor he had given the copy of notice to them. It is argued that as soon as the appellants came to know about the judgment, he immediately applied for certified copy of the judgment and the appeal was filed before this court. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be heard on merits.

5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent argued that the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2019 has been filed after a period of more than four years and therefore, the delay cannot be said to be bonafide at all. Admittedly, the appellants have themselves put their signature over the notices of the suit proceedings in presence of the process server. It is submitted that despite service of notices upon the appellants, the ex-parte proceedings were commenced by the learned trial court from 12.07.2019. Thereafter, a notice was sent by the respondent’s counsel through registered post asking for execution of registered sale deed on 21.12.2019. Further, it is submitted that the execution proceedings were initiated by the respondent on 31.03.2021, and the notices of execution were also duly served upon the appellants. No day to day satisfactory explanation with regard to the delay caused in filing the appeal has been given by the appellants, therefore, no case is made out of condoning the delay caused in filing the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record.

7. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is reproduced hereinunder for our reference:

“5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.—Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had suffic