2019 (2) TMI 1394 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 721 days in filing appeal - explanation offered in support of condonation of delay was that the then advocate had not informed the respondent about the disposal of suit - Possession of Villa - Held that - What is more striking is that the delay to the tune of 721 days was condoned by the High Court when there was no satisfactory explanation. In our view, there was gross negligence on part of the respondent and the explanation offered in support of the prayer for condonation does not appear to be correct. This is evident from the fact that no effective steps were taken to pursue the complaint which was lodged against the then advocate. In the petition for special leave, it was asserted that the complaint against the Advocate was not being proceeded with and the respondent had remained absent on the relevant date. Said assertion was not answered satisfactorily in the affidavit in reply filed in this Court. The delay ought not to have been condoned by the High Court - the order condoning delay is set aside - possession of the villa which was handed over to the appellants in pursuance of the order dated 23.05.2018 shall continue to remain with the appellants and be taken to be in terms of the Agreement entered into between the parties - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over payment and possession of a villa in a residential project.
2. Consumer complaint filed against the respondent.
3. Summary Suit filed by the respondent for recovery of outstanding dues.
4. Decision of District Forum-II and State Commission.
5. Dismissal of Civil Suit by Additional District Judge.
6. Appeal filed in High Court for condonation of delay.
7. High Court's order directing deposit of balance sale consideration and possession of villa.
8. High Court's subsequent order regarding possession and release of deposited amount.
9. Challenge to High Court's order in Supreme Court.

Analysis:
1. The appellants booked a residential plot for a villa in a project called "Cloud-9 Hill Town." An agreement was executed for the villa's construction with a total consideration of ?15,65,000, to be completed within 30 months. Dispute arose over outstanding dues and possession.
2. A Consumer Complaint (CC/110/2008) was filed alleging non-completion of the project on time and demanding possession of the villa against the balance payment of ?5,13,850. The District Forum-II directed the respondent to deliver the villa without interest and pay compensation of ?1,00,000 to the appellants.
3. The respondent filed a Summary Suit for recovery of ?8,73,556. The Civil Suit was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, rejecting the respondent's claim for recovery.
4. The State Commission is considering the appeal against the District Forum-II's order.
5. The respondent filed an appeal in the High Court seeking condonation of a 721-day delay. The High Court directed deposit of the balance sale consideration and possession of the villa to the appellants.
6. The High Court later ordered release of the deposited amount to the appellants and possession of the villa to be handed back. The High Court admitted the First Appeal for further proceedings.
7. The Supreme Court reviewed the case, found the delay condonation unjustified, and dismissed the First Appeal. The possession of the villa and the deposited amount were addressed in the final directions.
8. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the continuation of possession with the appellants, transfer of the deposited amount to the respondent with accrued interest, and the pending appeal before the State Commission to proceed on its merits. No costs were awarded.