An application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be supported by cogent and plausible reasons, as appellate courts will not extend indulgence when negligence persists throughout the legal proceedings and the party fails to explain an inordinate delay.

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 6.11.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN RA NO.58/2024 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KADUR., DISMISSING THE IA NO.1 FILED UNDER SEC.V OF THE LIMITATION ACT., AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 2.01.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.643/2021 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred by the defendants challenging the Judgment and Decree rendered by the Senior Civil Judge, Kadur in R.A. No. 58/2024, which confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the II Additional Civil Judge, JMFC at Kadur in O.S. No. 643/2021, whereby, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff directing the defendants to receive balance sale consideration amount and to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent - plaintiff within 2 months from the date of the order and put the plaintiff in possession over the schedule property and in the event of failing to do so, to execute the registered sale deed within 2 months from the date of the order. Plaintiff was given the liberty to deposit the balance sale consideration and to get the sale deed registered through the Court process and take possession in accordance with law.

2. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as per the status before the trial Court as plaintiff and defendants.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 13.09.2021. It is the case of the plaintiff that by the registered agreement of sale dated 13.09.2021, the defendants being the owners of the suit schedule property agreed to sell the property in favour of the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of ₹2,00,000/- and as an earnest money ₹1,50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff by way of cash which is acknowledged in the agreement of sale registered before the concerned authorities.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the defendants fail to honour the commitment. Hence, he got issued a legal notice on 21.10.2021 requesting the defendants to come forward to execute the sale deed and perform the part of the contractual obligation. Despite which, the defendants having not come forward to complete their part of the promise of registering the sale deed, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for specific performance of the contract. Upon filing of the suit, summons were issued to defendants who appeared before the Court, however, did not file written statement.

5. In order to substantiate the case of the plaintiff, he got examined himself as PW-1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.28 and closed his side. There was absolutely no contest by the defendants despite appearance before the Court. The learned trial judge formulated the following points for consideration.

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has executed sale agreement dated 13.09.2021 by receiving advance sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?

4. What order or decree?

6. Upon consideration of the materials placed on record, both oral and document, the trial Court agreed with the contentions of the plaintiff with regard to the agreement having been exec