Inordinate delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act without sufficient cause, especially when the party exhibits gross negligence and the decree has already been fully executed.

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET- ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK, IN R.A. NO.8003/2024 DATED 28.03.2024 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2022 PASSED IN O.S. NO.380/2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK AND DISMISS THE SUIT IN O.S. NO.380/2019 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Even though the appeal is at the stage of admission, with the consent of both sides, heard on merits.

2. This is the appeal filed under Section 100 CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2024 passed in R.A.No.8003/2024 on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first Appellate Court’, for short), and to set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.04.2022 passed in O.S.No.380/2019 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’, for short) and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

3. The parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

4. The plaintiff has filed the suit before trial Court, praying for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 15.03.2019 in respect of suit schedule property bearing Survey No. 112/1, measuring 2 acres 29 guntas 8 annas out of 5 acres 19 guntas situated at Rajapur Village, Mudalagi Taluk.

5. It is the contention of plaintiff that, the original defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property, for a sum of ₹6,00,000/- and received an advance sale consideration amount of ₹5,00,000/- and executed registered agreement of sale dated 15.03.2019. During pendency of the suit, original defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(f). Thereafter they contested the suit by filing their written statement and by cross-examining P.W.1. In spite of giving sufficient opportunities, they have not cross-examined P.W.2 and P.W.3.

6. After recording evidence and hearing arguments, trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his case and decreed the suit, directing the legal representatives of original defendant to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration amount.

7. After passing this judgment, legal representatives of the original defendant/appellants herein, have filed R.A.No.8003/2024. There was delay of 01 year 09 months and 22 days in filing the first appeal. In the meanwhile, plaintiff has filed execution petition wherein the Court Commissioner has executed registered sale deed on 26.11.2023on behalf of the defendant/legal representatives of defendant and possession was handed over to plaintiff. Thus, only after execution of the sale deed, the first appeal was filed before the first Appellate Court.

8. The only reason assigned for filing the appeal belatedly before the first Appellate Court is that, due to sudden death of original defendant, his legal representatives were in shadow mood and due to difference of opinion between them, and due to restrictions of COVID-19 Pandemic, they could not approach their advocate. Further, due to ill-health of the appellant who sworn to the af