Summary
The Court set aside condonation of a 721-day delay in the developer’s first appeal, finding gross negligence and an unsatisfactory explanation blaming its former advocate. The appeal consequently stood dismissed. Purchasers who had deposited the balance consideration and received the villa under the parties’ recorded understanding were allowed to retain possession; the deposit with accrued interest was directed to the developer. The separate consumer appeal remained open on its merits.
Issues
- Whether the developer satisfactorily explained the 721-day delay in filing its first appeal.
- Whether possession delivered pursuant to the parties’ recorded understanding should be reversed.
Held
- The purchasers deposited the balance consideration and the developer delivered possession pursuant to the understanding recorded in the High Court’s earlier orders. There was no justification for reversing that completed arrangement. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- The developer’s explanation attributing delay to its former advocate was unsatisfactory. Failure effectively to pursue the complaint against that advocate, and failure to answer the purchasers’ assertions about that neglect, supported the finding of gross negligence. (¶ 15)
- Condonation was set aside and the first appeal dismissed. Possession would remain with the purchasers under their agreement; the balance-price fixed deposit and accrued interest would be paid to the developer upon maturity. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- The pending appeal before the State Consumer Commission was to be decided independently on its own merits. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. Condonation set aside and developer’s first appeal dismissed, with possession retained by the purchasers and the deposited balance price plus interest payable to the developer; consumer appeal left open.