- (1.) The defendants who suffered a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale, preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court with a delay of 3 years and 7 months. The application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the said delay was dismissed by the first appellate Court. Hence, the present revision.
(2.) The defendants have contended in their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that the judgment and decree dated 10.5.2007 passed by the trial Court came to their notice only in the month of November, 2007. Having obtained a certified copy of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, they had preferred an appeal along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 5.1.2011. The counsel on record before the trial Court who promised to inform the defendants about the further development in the case, failed to inform them as to the result of the suit, therefore, the delay has occasioned, it is submitted.
(3.) Plaintiff has contended that the defendants contested the suit laid by her, through their counsel and received the verdict on merit in the presence of their counsel, despite the fact that they had not chosen to lead any evidence. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the defendants for condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not sustainable, it is contended.;