The present appeal arises out of the order dated 27.02.2026, as passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. whereby an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2010, as passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Manali, Distt. Kullu, H.P., whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed, has been dismissed being without any merit.

2. Brief facts of the case are the respondent/plaintiff Sanjay Kumar had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract against the present appellant before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Manali, Kullu, H.P on 13.03.2009.

3. As per the case of the plaintiff, the defendant is the owner-in-possession of the land measuring 0-03-09 hectares, being 2724/81720 share out off the total land measuring 0-92-78 hectare comprised in Khasra, Kitta 18, Khata/Khatauni No.41 min/61, enttered in Jamabandi for the year 2002-2003 situated in Muhal Phati Sajla, Kothi, Barshai, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P.

4. As per the case of the plaintiff, the defendant appellant entered into an agreement to sell the share in the suit land measuring 0-03-09 hectares for total sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- and agreement dated 16.04.2008 was also executed on this behalf. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed between the parties on or before 15^th July 2008. On 15.07.2008, the defendant was informed to come to Tehsil Manali and to execute the sale deed with respect to the suit land in favour of the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff remained present in Tehsil compound Manali from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM till evening with sufficient funds in order to meet expenses of execution and registration of sale deed with respect to the suit land but the defendant failed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. That he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and still he is ready and willing to do so. Thef defendant was requested time and again to admit the claim of the plaintiff, however, on one pretext or the otther, defendant refused to accede to the request of the plaintiff. Therefore, respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract with a prayer to execute and register the sale deed with respect to the suit land against the petitioner/defendant on the basis of the agreement as entered between the parties on 16.04.2008.

6. The Court issued notices to the petitioner/defendant, however, despite being duly served on 04.04.2009 she failed to put in appearance before the learned trial court and consequently she was proceeded exparte on 04.04.2008.

7. The learned Trial Court directed the plaintiff to adduce evidence in support of his contentions and after examining the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 04.01.2010 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent by directing the defendant to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed, by way of specific performance of agreement, qua the suit landf measuring 0-03-09 hect. being 2724/81720 shares out of the total land measuring 0-92-78 hect. Comprtised in Khasra Kitta 18, Khata/Khatauni No. 41 min/61, situated in Muhal and Phati Sajla, Kothi Barshai, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P. in terms of the agreement dated 16.04.2008 Ex.PW4/A.

8. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff being decree holder in pursuance to the passing of the decree filed an execution petition before the learned trial Court and the same was allowed on 16.04.2011 and the possession of the suit land has been handed over to the present plaintiff/ respondent.

9. In order to frustrate the decree as passed by the learned Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant filed an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. after the lapse of m