AJAY DABRA Vs. PYARE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Both these Appeals before this Court are by the plaintiff who had filed a suit for specific performance, which was dismissed and later his First Appeal before the High Court was dismissed on the grounds of delay. We may state here that the Plaintiff/Appellant was not a party to the contract of which a specific performance was sought. The contract was executed between the defendant and a company called M/s Himalayan Ski Village Pvt. Ltd. which was for sale of an 'agricultural land' in Himachal Pradesh. There were two plots of land for which two different "agreements of sale" were executed, and hence two civil suits were filed.

(3.) In both the above appeals, there is a common challenge against order dtd. 17/12/2018 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CMP (M) No.75 of 2018 and CMP (M) No.76 of 2018. The impugned order dismisses the delay condonation applications filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, declining to condone a delay of 254 days, because the reasons assigned for the condonation were not sufficient reasons for condonation of the delay. The Appellant herein had earlier filed two suits (bearing nos. 28/2012 and 29/2012), for specific performance which were dismissed by the District Judge, Kullu vide order dtd. 30/12/2016.