13 May 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court that had condoned a significant delay of 1116 days in filing an appeal against an ex-parte decree. This decision effectively reinstates the original ex-parte decree and dismisses the appeal filed by the respondents.

The case of Thirunagalingam v/s Lingeswaran & Another., originated from a 2015 sale agreement where Respondent No. 1 failed to execute a sale deed in favor of the Appellant. The Appellant filed a civil suit, O.S. No. 110/2015, for specific performance. During the suit's pendency, Respondent No. 1 sold the property to Respondent No. 2. Both respondents initially appeared in court and filed their written statements but later stopped appearing, leading to an ex-parte decree against them on February 7, 2017.

The respondents attempted to set aside the ex-parte decree by filing applications under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in 2018, along with applications to condone delays of 712 and 467 days. The trial court initially allowed these applications, but the High Court reversed this decision, which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in February 2022, effectively upholding the ex-parte decree.

Despite the finality of the previous proceedings, the respondents initiated a second round of litigation by filing an appeal against the ex-parte decree. This appeal was filed with a delay of 1116 days, for which they sought condonation. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, dismissed the condonation application on February 8, 2023. However, the High Court, in its impugned order of April 25, 2023, set aside the District Judge's order and condoned the delay subject to a payment of Rs. 1 lakh to the Appellant.

The Supreme Court, upon appeal by the original plaintiff (Appellant), found that the High Court's reliance on the case of N. Mohan v. R. Madhu was misplaced. In N. Mohan, the summons had not been properly served on the respondents, whereas in the present case, the respondents were duly served, appeared, and filed their written statements, indicating active participation before their subsequent non-appearance.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the reasons provided by the respondents for condoning the 1116-day delay were the very same grounds that had already been rejected by both the High Court and the Supreme Court in the earlier round of litigation concerning the applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The Court reiterated that a repetition of previously scrutinized and dismissed grounds for delay amounts to an abuse of the legal process. It held that merely filing applications under different legal provisions (Order IX Rule 13 CPC versus Order XLI Rule 3A read with Section 151 CPC) does not permit re-agitation of the same insufficient explanations for delay.

The Court also highlighted that condonation of delay should not be granted as an act of generosity and that the party seeking condonation must demonstrate genuine bona fides and sufficient cause, which the respondents failed to do in this case. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, allowing the appeal and disposing of all pending applications.

Section 151., Code of Civil Procedure - 1908  

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908