Full Judgment
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.
1. This application is filed by the applicant / defendant for condonation of 2623 days delay in filing the written statement.
2. The suit is one for specific performance and for consequential reliefs, based on the agreement of sale dated 15.07.2004. Though the defendant was served with suit summons and entered appearance through counsel, did not file the written statement within time.
3. From the records, it is seen that several times, the defendant had changed Counsel. Later, the defendant was called absent and set exparte and an exparte decree was passed by this Court on 08.09.2009.
4. Application No.4016 of 2011 was filed by the defendant for condoning the delay in setting aside the exparte decree dated 08.09.2009. The delay was also condoned by this Court on 28.01.2016 and the exparte decree was set aside on 16.06.2016 in Application No.2087 of 2016. Now, the present application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the written statement.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs vehemently contended that the delay is inordinate and the defendant had changed several Counsel at each stage thereby delaying the suit and therefore, the same cannot be allowed.
6. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. The applicant / defendant had filed a common affidavit explaining the cause for the delay in filing the application to set aside exparte decree and to condone the delay in filing the written statement.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents also filed a common counter affidavit resisting the same.
9. While dealing with the application to condone the delay in setting aside the exparte decree, in Application No.4016 of 2011, this Court on 28.01.2016, has given a finding as follows:
6....... The fact remains that the defendant / applicant has engaged very many Counsel by change of vakalat and therefore, it is not open to her to contend that since she is a resident of Hyderabad at the relevant point of time, she could not effectively defend the case. It is to be pointed out at this juncture that the defendant, when knowing the fact that the Suit has been decreed exparte on 08.09.2009, filed the written statement on 09.08.2011 in Diary No.28045 and the same is available on record, however, it was not taken on file may be on account of the reason that it was not supported by any application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. This Court, taking into consideration that the Suit is in respect of the property located in the City of Chennai and taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances, especially the fact that the written statement filed by the defendant, though available on record, not yet taken on file, is of the view that one more final opportunity is to be given to the defendant / applicant so as to enable her to contest the suit on merits.....
10. As stated, the averments are common in all the three applications and the delay explained for setting aside the exparte decree is already allowed by this Court. Having decided to give an opportunity to the defendant to contest the suit on merits, I am also inclined to condone the delay in filing the written statement. As stated, written statement has been filed along with the application to set aside the exparte decree on 09.08.2011 itself in Diary No. 28045 and it was not taken on file, as the application for condonation of delay was not ordered. However, now, there seems to be more than seven years delay in filing the written statement. Hence, it would be appropriate to allow the application, as the reasons are already been accepted by this Court, in Application No.4016 of 2011, which was allowed on payment of Rs.25,000/- to the first plaintiff.
11. In fine, the present application is also allowed and the written statement is taken on file.