OBJECTIONS OF 2ND TO 4TH RESPONDENTS TO DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER:-
1. The interim application is not maintainable since the affidavit accompanied the application does not speaks truth and its vague and not specific in disclosing accurate reasons for the absence of petitioner/plaintiff in the days wherein court has scheduled to plaintiff evidence.
2. The affidavit consist of mere allegations un-supported by documents, hence liable to be dismissed. The written statement and objections filed by these respondents to the main petition be read as part and parcel of this objections to delay condonation application.
3. The matter of condonation of delay, it is an established position that every day's delay has to be explained and a person who seeks the exercise of the discretion to condone the delay in his favour cannot run away by making a mere general statement or mere allegation unsupported by document or mere passing of his laches upon his advocate.
4. It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by s. 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condoning delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone.
5. Even if delay is condoned no purpose will be served because, The main case is one for specific performance of contract upon the suit schedule property which is not binding on these respondents as per the decree made against the petitioner and 1st respondent herein on 25-10-2008 on the file of 2nd Addl Civil Judge (Jrdn) at Tumkur in OS 386/2007 regarding the same schedule property. Moreover from the date of the said decree upto three years that is upto 24-10-2011 the plaintiff has not sought the amendment of plaint in respect of the specific enforcement of contract in relation to only the share of 1st respondent in OS 168/2007 in this court. The same decree of another court is neither challenged by the petitioner in any forum. The relief claimed in the plaint cannot be amended after the statutory limitation. The case itself not maintainable under the law and hence the application to condone the delay application is liable to be dismissed.
6. Provisions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between parties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation on particular causes of action must take. – The petitioner herein has not disclosed in his pleadings the exact reasons and does not provided documents in support of his application to enable this respondents to take specific objections to the nature of documents with counter verifications for knowing the reasons for the delay.
Where fore the application to condone the delay is not maintainable and these respondents humbly seeks court intervention by way of dismissal of application in the interest of Justice.