Appellate delay condoned despite misstatement, subject to an undertaking not to seek remand.

The petitioners, defendants in a suit for specific performance, sought to appeal the decree after their advocate filed a no-instruction pursis.

The advocate had sent a letter concerning his withdrawal to petitioner No. 2, but the trial court issued no fresh notice to the defendants; the suit proceeded in their absence and was decreed for the plaintiff.

The petitioners filed a regular civil appeal approximately 200 days late.

The appellate court rejected their delay application, finding that it contained a false statement that they had not been informed of the advocate’s withdrawal.

Before the High Court, the petitioners undertook not to seek remand for a retrial and to pursue the appeal on the existing record; the respondent consented to condonation on that basis.

Whether the appellate court’s rejection of the delay application should be set aside and the approximately 200-day delay in filing the regular civil appeal condoned, notwithstanding the misstatement in the application.

Whether condonation could be granted subject to the petitioners’ undertaking not to seek remand or retrial and to conduct the appeal on the evidence already on record.

The petition was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Court treated the right of appeal as a statutory right that should not be defeated on a hyper-technical ground.

It considered condonation of delay appropriate on the particular facts and on the parties’ consensus, subject to the petitioners’ undertaking not to seek remand and to proceed on the existing record.

The Court did not identify or apply any specific limitation provision or precedent; it expressly stated that its decision, based on broad consensus, was not to be treated or cited as a precedent.

The Court acknowledged that the delay application inaccurately stated that the petitioners had not been informed of their advocate’s withdrawal, because a letter had been sent to petitioner No. 2.

However, the advocate had represented all three petitioners, no individual notice had been served on each, and the trial court issued no fresh notice after the no-instruction pursis; consequently, the suit proceeded without the defendants’ participation and they could not lead oral evidence.

In light of those circumstances, the petitioners’ undertaking to pursue the appeal on the existing record, and the respondent’s consent subject to that undertaking, the Court concluded that the delay should be condoned rather than allowing the misstatement to defeat the appeal.

The appellate court was requested to register and decide the regular civil appeal in accordance with law.

The petitioners may not seek remand to the trial court for retrial, and the appellate court must not entertain such a request; the appeal is to proceed on the evidence already on record.

The respondent may withdraw the ₹20,000 deposited by the petitioners.