Legal Battle Over Specific Performance: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Delay Condonation

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a crucial judgment in the case of K. Ramasamy v. R. Nallammal & Ors. concerning a dispute over specific performance and delay condonation. The case revolved around an ex-parte decree passed on 13.04.2016, which the defendants sought to set aside after a delay of 1312 days.

The appellant, K. Ramasamy, challenged the High Court’s decision to condone the delay and allow the defendants to file a written statement. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s rejection of the delay condonation, highlighting the principle that ‘the law favors the diligent and not the indolent.’

Background of the Case

The dispute began with a sale agreement executed between the plaintiff and the second defendant, acting under a power of attorney granted by the first defendant. The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 5 lakhs against a total consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs but alleged that the defendants failed to fulfill their obligations. This led to the plaintiff filing a suit for specific performance.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-restores-consumer-complaint-against-builder-over-delayed-flat-handover/

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

• Senior Counsel Sri. Dama Seshadri Naidu, representing the appellant, contended that the delay of 1312 days was unjustified and not explained properly.
• The first defendant, despite appearing in court, did not file a written statement, and his legal representatives delayed seeking relief even after appearing in execution proceedings.
• The delay condonation would unfairly disadvantage the plaintiff, who had already deposited the balance amount and waited for years to enforce the agreement.

Respondents’ Arguments

• Senior Counsel Sri. Gopal Shankarnarayanan, representing the respondents, argued that hardship should be considered in an equitable manner.
• The respondents claimed that the sale agreement was a collusive affair, and the first defendant had canceled the power of attorney upon discovering the transaction.
• They also asserted that the advance payment could be refunded, and the trial court’s rejection of the delay condonation was unduly harsh.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the reasons cited for the delay and found them insufficient. The key findings were:

• The first defendant appeared in the suit but did not contest it, despite having the opportunity.
• The legal representatives were aware of the decree but delayed filing an application to set it aside, even after appearing in execution proceedings.
• The claim that the lawyer misplaced the case files was unsubstantiated, as the same lawyer continued to represent one of the legal heirs.
• The court ruled that condoning the delay would disrupt the balance of justice, particularly when the plaintiff had already complied with financial obligations.

Conclusion and Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant and set aside the High Court’s order, thereby restoring the trial court’s rejection of the delay condonation application. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely litigation, concluding that ‘substantial justice should not be overshadowed by technical considerations, but deliberate inaction should not be rewarded.’

This case reaffirms the principle that courts will not lightly condone undue delays in civil litigation, especially when the parties had ample opportunities to act within reasonable timeframes.

Petitioner Name: K. Ramasamy.
Respondent Name: R. Nallammal & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Judgment Date: 03-03-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: k.-ramasamy-vs-r.-nallammal-&-ors.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-03-03-2025.pdf