IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Before:

The Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee And The Hon’ble Justice Om Narayan Rai APDT 35 of 2024 With CS 347 of 1999 IA No: GA 1 of 2024 IA No: GA 2 of 2024 R.C Estate Private Limited & Ors.

Vs.

Sashi Devi Agarwal For the Appellants : Mr. S.N. Mitra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, Adv.

Mr. Joyjit Roychowdhury, Adv.

Mr. Rohit Chowdhury, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Pradip Kumar Dutta, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Chanchal Kumar Dutta, Adv.

Ms. K. Mullick, Adv.

Heard on : 21.04.2025 Judgment on : 01.05.2025 Om Narayan Rai, J.:-

1. The instant appeal assails a judgment and decree dated April 3, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in a suit for specific performance being CS No. 347 of 1999, whereby the learned Single Judge has decreed the suit ex-parte and directed the defendants to execute conveyance of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.

2. There is a delay of 3884 days in preferring the instant appeal. The appellants (who had been arrayed as the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the said suit), therefore, have taken out an application being IA/GA No. 1 of 2024 praying for condonation of delay occasioned by the appellants in preferring the appeal. Since the appeal has been presented before this Court belatedly, the Court would be first required to test the validity of the reasons assigned by the appellants for such belated approach to the Court, prior to entering into the merits of the appeal.

3. The said application for condonation of delay (hereafter “condonation application”) has been opposed by the plaintiff-respondent by filing an affidavit-in-opposition and the appellants (hereafter “petitioners”) have responded thereto by an affidavit-in-reply.

4. Briefly summed up, the case run in the condonation application is as follows:

a. A suit being C.S. 347 of 1999 had been instituted by the respondent for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated August 20, 1995. The petitioners entered appearance in the suit and filed their written statement on January 04, 2000 and the petitioners had all along been contesting the suit.

b. There was no constructive development in the suit as the respondent had failed to take proper steps therefor.

c. The said suit was being looked after/conducted by the defendant no.3 (i.e. Gulab Chand Shyamsukha since deceased) on behalf of the petitioners and all the records and papers pertaining to the said case were kept with the said defendant no.3 only. When the said defendant no.3 expired on May 01, 2013 the connecting link between the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the petitioners snapped.

d. After the death of the defendant no.3, the records and papers pertaining to the said case became non-traceable and the petitioners became clueless about the same. The petitioners attempted to recover the said records and documents from the family members of the deceased defendant no.3 but they failed as the family members of the deceased defendant did not cooperate and refused to hand over the records and pleadings to the petitioners.

e. The petitioners ultimately came to know about the judgment and decree dated April 03, 2014 upon the same being disclosed to them by the learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent under the cover of a letter dated August 24, 2022 that had been issued to the petitioners by the said learned Advocate inconnection with another suit being C.S 348 of 1999 instituted by one Raj Kumar Agarwal against the petitioners.

f. The petitioners also had no clue about the deed of conveyance that had been registered by the Registrar Original Side whereby the conveyance of the suit property was registered in favour of the respondent herein, till the same was tendered in evidence and marked as exhibit in the said other suit i.e. C.S 348 of 1999 filed by one Raj Kumar Agarwal.

g. It was only thereafter that the petitioners took steps for challenging the said the judgment and decree dated April 03, 2014 obtaining the certif