ORDER:

Defendant in the suit filed above revision petition against the order dated 12.09.2022 in I.A.No.295 of 2022 in O.S.No.28 of 2015 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur.

Plaintiff filed the suit vide O.S.No.28 of 2015 against the defendant, seeking specific performance of contract of sale dated 30.12.2014. Defendant by engaging an Advocate filed written statement. The suit was decreed on 24.08.2018. After the decree, the decree holder filed E.P. Pending E.P, the defendant filed I.A.No.295 of 2022 under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1100 days in filing the petition and to set aside the decree dated 24.08.2018.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that the defendant having received the summons, engaged Advocate and filed written statement. The agreement pleaded by the plaintiff is forged one. Plaintiff examined as PW.1, one of the attesters was examined as PW.2. The Advocate did not inform him about the stage of the case. Plaintiff’s evidence closed on 25.06.2018 and suit was posted for the evidence of defendant’s side. Defendant has no knowledge about the developments in the case and hence could not let in evidence. Judgment was pronounced on 24.08.2018. Defendant received notice in E.P. By engaging present Advocate, he filed the present petition on 31.08.2021. 3. Respondent/plaintiff filed counter and opposed the application. Trial court by order dated 12.09.2022, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

4. Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar learned counsel representing Sri Venkateswarulu counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Krishna Sai, learned counsel representing P. Sree Ramulu Niadu, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner though engaged Advocate, the said Advocate did not inform the petitioner about the stage of the case. He would contend that for the lapse on the part of the Advocate, the petitioner shall not be suffered. He also would contend that the agreement of the sale is forged one. He further contended that the petitioner is aged about 90 years. There are no lapses on the part of the petitioner. When he received notice in E.P, immediately the application is filed to condone the delay to set aside the ex-parte decree. The court below without considering these aspects dismissed the application.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that PW.1 and PW.2 were cross examined by the advocate engaged by the petitioner. The learned advocate, in fact, argued the case in the lower court, thereafter, the suit was decreed on contest. He would further contend that the trial court considering all these aspects dismissed the application.

7. The point for consideration is :

Whether the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction with it in condoning the delay of 1100 days in filing the petition to set aside the decree dated 24.08.2018 in O.S.No.28 of 2015.

8. Suit O.S.No.28 of 2015 was filed seeking specific performance. Defendant, by filing written statement contested the suit. PW.1 and PW.2 are cross examined on behalf of plaintiff. As seen from the order of the Court below, on 25.07.2018, the counsel for defendant reported no defense. On 08.08.2018, the defendant counsel argued the case and later the suit was reserved for judgment. On 24.08.2018, the suit was decreed on contest.

10. In Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy1, the Hon’ble Apex Court broadly culled out the following principles:

i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-

oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an

1 (2013) 12 SCC 649

application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

ii) The terms sufficient cause should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are