2021 INSC 0637
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6315 OF 2021
( ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 27874 OF 2018 )
DR. YASHWANTRAO BHASKARRAO DESHMUKH ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAGHUNATH KISAN SAINDANE    …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T 
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. This   appeal   arises   out   of   the   judgment   passed   on
7.8.2018 by the High Court of judicature of Bombay, Bench at
Aurangabad on Civil Application No. 12143 of 2017 in Second
Appeal   (ST)   No.   31286   of   2017   dismissing   the   application
seeking   condonation   of   delay     and   the   appeal   as   barred   by
limitation.
3. The   facts   leading   to   file   this   appeal   are   that   a   suit   for
specific   performance   of   the   contract   was   filed   by   the
1

respondent   against   the   appellant   based   on   an   agreement   to
sell   dated   18.2.1998   with   respect   to   an   agricultural   land
bearing Gat No. 21/1, admeasuring 1.54 hectares, situated at
Maouje Hingone Sim Tehsil Amalner.  The said suit was partly
decreed  ex­parte by judgment dated 9.12.2002 in Special Civil
Suit   No.   2   of   2001   by   Civil   Judge   (Sr.   Division),   Amalner
directing recovery of  a sum of Rs. 61,000/­ along with interest
@   6%   p.a.   from   the   appellant   (defendant   therein),   while   relief
for specific performance of contract was denied.
4. Respondent preferred first  appeal before the High Court.
The   appellant   was   duly   served     and     appeared     in   the   said
matter through the counsel. However, due to enhancement of
pecuniary   jurisdiction     of   the   District   Court,   the   said   appeal
stood   transferred   from   the   High   Court   to   the   District   Court.
Thereafter,   a fresh notice was issued to  the appellant, which
was served through  paper  publication.   The appellant did not
appear, and taken   pretext of non­service of the notice due to
change of  his   address.    The  Ad­hoc  District  Judge­I, Amalner
proceeding ex­parte, allowed the Regular Civil Appeal No. 31 of
2

2012   vide   judgment   dated   8.09.2015   and   granted   decree   of
specific performance in favour of respondent (plaintiff therein).
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Ad­hoc District Judge­I,
appellant   filed   second   appeal   before   the   High   Court   of
judicature   of   Bombay,   Bench   at   Aurangabad     on   18.9.2017,
inter   alia,   contending   that   the   judgment   passed   by   the   Ist
Appellate   Court   came   to   his   knowledge   only     on   14.9.2017.
There was   a delay of 650 days in filing the appeal.   However,
explaining   the   delay   due   to   lack   of   knowledge   of   the   decision
in the appeal, prayer for condonation was made.
6 . By the impugned judgment dated 07.08.2018, passed by
the High Court in Second Appeal (ST) No. 31286 of 2017, the
application  seeking  condonation  was  rejected,    observing  that
the plea of non service of notice due to  change of address was
not   acceptable.   It   was   also   observed   that   the   appellant   had
himself   been   negligent   and   had   not   contacted   his   counsel
engaged   in   the   lower   appellate   court.     The   High   Court,
however,   observed   that     the   respondent,   who   had   been
litigating     since   last   17   years,   ought   not     be   deprived   of   the
3

valuable right as accrued to him.  With these observations, the
application   seeking   condonation   was   rejected,   dismissing   the
second appeal, as time barred.
7 . Learned counsel  for the appellant has strenuously urged
that the suit was filed for specific performance of  contract.  As
per the defence   taken, it is   visible from the agreement   itself
that it was not an agreement to sell but a money transaction,
to   which   a   sum   of   Rs.   90,000/­   has   been   refunded   and   only
sum of Rs. 51,000/­ was remaining. In addition, Rs. 10,000/­
paid later and endorsed therein.     The trial court decreed   the
suit   partly,   for     refund   of   earnest   amount.     The   decree   of
specific   performance   is   a   discretionary   relief,   as   specified
under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act.   However, without
giving   an   opportunity   of   hearing   to   contest     the   claim,   the
lower appellate court allowed the appeal of the respondent and
passed   an   ex­parte     judgment   and   decree   of   specific
performance.     Counsel   argued   that   the     dismissal   of   the
second   appeal   on   the   ground   of   limitation   is   wholly
unreasonable.   
4

8 . In   support   of   the   contentions,   reliance   has   been   placed
on   a   judgment   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Perumon
Bhagvathyu   Devaswom   Perinadu   Village   vs.   Bhargavi
Amma (dead) by LRS and Others  (2008)8SCC 321 to contend
that   when   appeal   is   pending   in   the   appellate   court   where
periodical   dates   are   not   being   given,   the   parties   cannot   be
faulted with because the counsel informs the parties that they
will   get   in   touch   as   and   when   the   case   is   listed   for   hearing.
Considering   the   facts   of   the   case   in   which   the   notice   of   the
appeal   sent   by   publication   is   not   allegedly   served   and   the
documents   of   change   of   address   have   been   filed   by   the
appellant   as   well   as   the   respondent,   which   are   on   record,   in
such a situation, lenient view ought be taken.
9. Reliance is further  placed on the  judgment  of this Court
in   N.   Mohan  vs.  R.  Madhu   2019(16)SCALE 602.   In the said
case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
in   the   interest   of   justice,   an   opportunity   was   granted   subject
to deposit of the amount.  
5

10. Reliance is further placed on the decision of this Court in
Rohin Thapa vs. Rohit Dora  (2019) 7 SCC 359, wherein this
Court   subject   to   direction     of   deposit   of   the   amount   of   the
agreement   and   further   deposit   of     the   amount   of   the   stamp
and   registration   fee,   directed   to   condone   the   delay   and   also
set­aside the sale deed, executed by the Court.   Therefore, an
opportunity   in   a   suit   of   specific   performance   to   the   appellant
may   be   granted   condoning   the   delay   subject   to   imposition   of
the conditions, as deemed fit.
11. Per   contra,   learned   counsel   representing   the   respondent
contends   that   a   suit   for   specific   performance   of   contract   was
filed long back and respondent is contesting the matter for the
last   20   years.     In   the   said   suit   in   trial   court,   the   appellant
remained ex­parte.  However, the suit was partly decreed.   On
filing   a   first   appeal   before   the   High   Court,   notice   was   served
and   the   appellant   was   represented   through   an   advocate.
Later,  due to   enhancement   of  pecuniary  jurisdiction,  the  said
appeal     stood   transferred   to   the   court   of   Ad­hoc   District
Judge­I, Amalner, where from notice of the appeal was served
6

through   publication.   The   appellant   did   not   choose   to   appear
before   the   Ist   Appellate   Court,   however   the   suit   seeking
specific   performance   was   decreed.       The   appellant   remained
ex­parte   and   on   filing   the   execution,   the   sale   deed   has   also
been executed.   The appeal filed before the High Court by the
appellant was barred by limitation of 650 days, which has not
been   explained   showing   bona   fides.     In   such   a   case,
interference by this Court is not warranted.
12 . Having   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties     and   on
perusal   of   the   facts   of   the   case,   suit   seeking   specific
performance   was   based   on   an   agreement   to   sell   dated
18.2.1998.     As   per   the   said   agreement   to   sell,   appellant   had
agreed to sell  5 bighas of land for a consideration  at the rate
of   Rs.   51000/­   per   bigha.     As   per   the   entries     on   the
agreement   to   sell,  certain   amount   was  paid.  Later   on,   certain
refund is also  recorded and  acknowledged thereon.    The Trial
Court,   considering   the   same,   refused   to   grant   a   decree   of
specific   performance   but   directed   for   refund   of     Rs.   61,000/­
with   interest.     The   said   decree   was   reversed   by   the   lower
7

Appellate   Court,   directing   specific   performance.     In   both   the
courts,  the appellant remained ex­parte.  
13 . The   appellant   filed   an   appeal   before   the   High   Court,
which   has   been   dismissed   as   barred   by   limitation.     The   High
Court, while dismissing the application seeking condonation of
delay in filing second appeal observed that sufficient cause for
delay has not been established.  The litigant, who is contesting
the   matter,   cannot   be   negligent   and   it   would   be   unfair     to
deprive   the   respondent,   litigating   for   the   last   17   years,   of   the
valuable right that has accrued to him. 
14 .   In   this   case,   the   appellant   has   also   produced   the
documents   including   voters   list/aadhar   card   showing   his
change   of   address   from   Amalner   to   Nashik.   On   the   other
hand,   the   respondent     has   produced     the     voters’   list   of
Amalner   itself     contending   that   the   name   of   appellant   is   still
existing.     However,   in   such   a   situation   without   any   enquiry
and   without   arriving   at   a   finding   disbelieving   the   explanation
of   the   appellant,  the   High  Court   was  not  justified  in   rejecting
the application for condonation of delay.
8

15 . As per the judgment of  Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom
(supra), the Court, while dealing with the issue of condonation
of delay in respect of   matters pending at the appellate stage,
has   clearly   observed     that     advocates   usually   inform   the
litigants   who   are     to   be   in   contact.     Sometimes,   they   assure
their   clients   that   will   give   information   to   them   as   and   when
matter would be ripe for hearing. Considering   the   aforesaid
aspect   and   taking   a   lenient   view,   we   are   of   the   considered
opinion   that   the   High   Court   erred   in   dismissing   the   second
appeal   solely   on   the   ground   of   limitation.     Therefore,   the
impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set­aside.  
16. A second appeal lies to the High Court if the High Court
is   satisfied   that   a   substantial   question   of   law   is   involved.   We
request   the   High   Court   to   take   up   the   second   appeal   for
admission   as   expeditiously   as   possible,   preferably   within   one
month,   and   if   the   second   appeal   is   admitted,   to   decide   and
finally dispose of the same within a period of six months from
the date of communication of this judgment and order.  
9

17 . It   is   made   clear   here   that   any   of   the   observations   made
hereinabove   would   not   be   treated   as   an   expression   on   the
merits of second appeal and would not cause any impediment
to the parties.
18. Appeal   is,   thus,   disposed   of   in   the   aforesaid   terms.     No
order as to costs. 
  
……………………………J.
[ INDIRA BANERJEE ]
……………………………J.
[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 8, 2021.
10