Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Sanjay Singh and another against the order of the Delhi High Court dated 25.07.2018. The dispute arose from an agreement dated 14.04.2004 between the appellants and Central Himalayan Land Development Co. Ltd. for purchase of a villa in a project called 'Cloud-9 Hill Town' in Uttarakhand. The total consideration was Rs.15,65,000/-. The appellants paid most of the amount but received a demand notice for balance of Rs.5,13,850/- with interest. They tendered the amount but the respondent refused. The respondent filed a summary suit for recovery of Rs.8,73,556/- (including interest). The appellants also filed a consumer complaint. The trial court dismissed the suit. The respondent appealed with a delay of 721 days. The High Court condoned the delay and passed interim orders directing the appellants to deposit Rs.5,13,850/- and the respondent to hand over possession. Possession was handed over. However, on final hearing, the High Court reversed the situation, directing return of the deposit and possession. The Supreme Court held that the delay condonation was unjustified due to gross negligence and lack of satisfactory explanation. It also held that the High Court's interim order granting possession was beyond the scope of the suit (which was for recovery of money). The Court set aside the order condoning delay and dismissed the appeal, but directed that possession of the villa shall continue with the appellants as per the agreement.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Gross Negligence - Delay of 721 days condoned by High Court without satisfactory explanation - Respondent claimed advocate's fault but no effective steps taken against advocate - Held that delay ought not to have been condoned (Paras 15). B) Civil Procedure - Interim Orders - Scope of Main Proceedings - Possession of property in a suit for recovery of money - High Court's interim order directing possession of villa beyond scope of suit - Held that such interim order was beyond the scope of main proceedings (Paras 11, 14). C) Consumer Protection - Real Estate - Possession and Balance Payment - Agreement for sale of villa - Appellants deposited balance consideration of Rs.5,13,850/- and obtained possession pursuant to interim orders - Held that possession should continue as per agreement (Paras 13-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in condoning a delay of 721 days in filing the appeal and in directing reversal of possession of the villa which had been handed over pursuant to interim orders.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order condoning delay, and dismissed the First Appeal. It directed that possession of the villa shall continue with the appellants as per the agreement, and the amount deposited by the appellants be released to them with accrued interest.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- gross negligence
- satisfactory explanation
- interim orders beyond scope of main proceedings
- possession pending appeal
