JAGDAMBA SYNTHETICS Vs. ASWANI BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for specific performance being Regular Civil Suit No.610 of 1997 came to be decreed on 31/8/2006. After the said decree was pressed in execution, it appears that the petitioner/ defendant No.1/judgment debtor to the aforesaid suit preferred an appeal along with the prayer for condonation of delay. The said prayer is rejected vide impugned order dtd. 15/2/2022. As such, this petition.

(2.) Submissions of counsel for the petitioner are, if the events as had occurred during the pendency of the suit are appreciated, what can be inferred is, though time and again the petitioner/defendant No.1 has engaged various advocates, however, he was failed to get proper or appropriate advise. According to him, it is only after the notice of execution proceedings was received, he was advised to file appeal and as such, delay caused is unintentional and bonafide. Drawing support from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Rafiq Vs. Munshilal and Anr. reported in (1981) 2 SCC 788, so also from the judgment in the matter of Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 4709, he would urge that failure of the lawyer should not act to the detriment to the petitioner/applicant and as such, there is sufficient cause for ordering delay condonation.

(3.) The respondent No.1 who appears in person would support the order impugned.