A separate application for condonation of delay is unnecessary if sufficient grounds are asserted within the application to justify the delay.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are the defendant No.2 and 3 in the suit filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court.

2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell. The defendant No.2 and 3 had purchased the property from the defendant No.1 through the registered sale deed. The plaintiff claims that a prior agreement to sell is in his favour. The defendant No.2 and 3 appeared in the suit through Mr.H.S.Narang, Advocate, who had filed the written statement. The defendant No.2 and 3 claim that their counsel had advised them not to be present in the Court on each and every date and as and when their presence is required, the intimation will be given to them by their counsel. They further claim that they came to know of the decree a day before the filing of the application as the plaintiff (decree holder) proclaimed in the area that he has been granted the decree.

3. Both the Courts below have dismissed the application on the following grounds:-

i) The application has been filed after a period of one year from the date of the decree.

ii) The petitioners have not asserted about the date of their knowledge.

iii) No separate application for condonation of delay has been filed.

iv) The defendant No.1 and 2 have not disclosed the date on which the decree holder proclaimed that he has been granted the decree.

4. By ex parte judgment and decree, the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant No.2 and 3 has been set aside.

5. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance, perused the paper-book.

6. The learned counsel representing the petitioners, while drawing the attention of this Court to para 1, 3 and 4 of the application, submits that the defendant No.2 and 3 did specifically assert their knowledge only a day before the date on which the application was filed. The learned counsel submits that both the Courts below have erred in overlooking the aforesaid averment. The learned counsel further submits that filing of a separate application for condonation of delay is not mandatory, once, the assertions in the application are sufficient to make out a ground for condoning the delay. The learned counsel further submits that both the Courts below have erred in overlooking the pleadings of the defendant No.2 and 3 while filing an application under Order XI Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC").

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondent submits that the defendant No.2 and 3 filed an application under Order XI Rule 13 CPC, which was subsequently amended. He further submits that in the unamended application, the defendant No.2 and 3 pleaded that they never appeared in the suit.

8. This Court has considered the submissions. Para No.1, 3 and 4 of the amended application under Order XI Rule 13 CPC are extracted as under:-

"1. That the applicants/Judgment Debtors No.2 and 3 has come to know yesterday that above mentioned titled execution petition is pending before this Hon'ble court and in the parte decree above mentioned case an Ex-has been passed by the Court Sh.Gurbir Singh, PCS, Civil Judge, (Jr.Div) Ludhiana, against the applicants/judgment debtors No.2 and 3 vide order dated 05.08.2013 in civil suit no:521 of 24.8.2004.

2. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX

3. The applicants/Judgment debtors No.2 and 3 only came to know about the pa