M. NAGABHUSHANA REDDY (DIED PER L.RS.), MIDAKANTHI SEHSHAMMA, MIDAKANTHI VEENA AND MIDAKANTI THIRUMALA REDDY Vs. MOHD. MOULANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1(a)(i). The A.S.M.P. Nos. 2080, 2081 and 2082 of 2013 are filed seeking to condone the delay of 3268 days in filing the application to bring on record the legal representatives of the 1st respondent as respondents 3 to 6 of the appeal by setting aside the abatement caused therein and to implead the respondents 3 to 6 as legal representatives of the deceased 1st respondent.

(2.) 1(b). It is further contended that a suit for specific performance mandates the continuous readiness and willingness before one gets entitled to seek the equitable relief and the claim of the petitioners to succeed fundamentally rests on the eagerness to pursue their claim which is clearly lacking in this case and hence prayed to dismiss the applications in the interest of justice.

(3.) Admittedly, there is no statutory law laying a separate criteria in considering the application for condonation of delay in a suit for specific performance, much less, any principle of law laid down by any Constitutional Court saying delay to be condoned is with reference to the principles of law laid down by Sections 16 and 20 of the Specific Performance Act and thereby every day readiness and willingness that is required to be explained to get the equitable relief equally applies to condone the delay in bringing the legal representatives of a party died pending the proceedings under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but for to say the general criteria under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of each days delay to be explained unless what was explained for the entire period of delay in on same cause.