Same Grounds Cannot Justify a Second Condonation Request: Supreme Court Rejects Reopening of Ex-Parte Decree After Delay of 1116 Days

“Once This Court Has Held That Delay Has Not Been Properly Explained, It Cannot Be Reagitated Before Another Forum” –  Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal against the Madras High Court’s order that had condoned a delay of 1116 days in filing a first appeal against an ex-parte decree. The Apex Court held that the reasons offered for the delay were already rejected in previous proceedings and could not be reopened under a different procedural provision.

The dispute arose from a sale agreement dated 17.08.2015 between the appellant Thirunagalingam (plaintiff) and the first respondent (defendant). Upon the defendant’s failure to execute the sale deed, the appellant filed a civil suit for specific performance. While the suit was pending, the first respondent sold the property to the second respondent on 26.11.2015. The defendants eventually stopped appearing, and the trial court passed an ex-parte decree on 07.02.2017.

The appellant then executed the decree through execution proceedings. The respondents attempted to challenge the ex-parte decree by filing applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, along with condonation of delay petitions for 712 and 467 days, respectively. The trial court accepted their applications, but the High Court reversed that decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the respondents’ special leave petitions against the High Court’s decision on 25.02.2022, confirming the ex-parte decree.

Despite this, the respondents initiated a second round of litigation by filing an appeal under Section 96(2) of CPC and sought condonation of a delay of 1116 days. While the appellate court rejected this application, the High Court condoned the delay upon payment of Rs. 1 lakh, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues and Supreme Court’s Findings

The core legal question was whether the respondents could seek condonation of delay in filing an appeal by reusing the same grounds previously rejected by the Supreme Court in the earlier round of litigation.

The Court answered in the negative, emphasizing that the finality of judicial orders must be respected. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, writing the judgment, observed:

“Since the Respondents assigned the very same reasons in I.A. No. 1 of 2022… as raised in I.A. Nos. 462 of 2018 and 119 of 2019 that had already been dismissed by this Court… the application for condonation of delay of 1116 days cannot be sustained.”

The Court rejected the respondents' invocation of N. Mohan v. R. Madhu [(2020) 20 SCC 302], clarifying that the facts of that case involved non-service of summons, while here the respondents were duly served, entered appearance, and filed written statements before ceasing to participate.

“The dictum in N. Mohan cannot be applied to the instant matter… Consequently, the impugned order… is perverse in nature and is not in conformity with the legal principles.”

On Abuse of Process and Re-litigation

The Court held that repeating previously rejected grounds before a different forum amounted to “abuse of the process of law”: “This Court is of the considered view that such a repetition of grounds already scrutinized and held untenable amounts to an abuse of the process of law.”

The bench reiterated that condonation of delay must be grounded in bona fide justification and cannot be granted merely out of sympathy:

“Only when sufficient cause or reasons given for the delay by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced… the court may consider the merits.”

On Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act

Rejecting the respondents’ argument under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the Court stated that once the earlier reasons had been held insufficient by a court of competent jurisdiction, they could not justify delay under a different provision. The Court made clear: “Although the applications for condonation of delay are filed under different provisions… if the application under one provision has already been dismissed… a subsequent application reiterating the same contentions cannot be entertained.”

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dated 25.04.2023, and reaffirmed the finality of the ex-parte decree. The judgment emphasizes judicial discipline, procedural integrity, and the importance of litigants acting diligently. It is a clear message against forum shopping and repetition of rejected pleas.

Date of Decision: 13 May 2025