Sushila Narahari & Ors. Vs. Nandakumar & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 9480 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3189/96)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14-02-1994 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No. 306 1994)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3189/96)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14-02-1994 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No. 306 1994)
Petitioner: Sushila Narahari & Ors.
Respondent: Nandakumar & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 9480 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3189/96)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14-02-1994 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No. 306 1994)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3189/96)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14-02-1994 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No. 306 1994)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 08, 1996
Appearances:
Mr. M.A. Krishna Moorthy, Advocate for the Appellants.
Dr. A. Francis Julian and Mr. A. Mariarputham, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Ex-parte decree – Setting aside of – Application late by 40 days – Dereliction of duty by the Advocate – Vakalatnama withdrawn without notice to the appellants – Delay held justified – Ex parte decree set aside and matter remitted to the trial court – Appeal allowed.
Ex-parte decree – Setting aside of – Application late by 40 days – Dereliction of duty by the Advocate – Vakalatnama withdrawn without notice to the appellants – Delay held justified – Ex parte decree set aside and matter remitted to the trial court – Appeal allowed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the learned single Judge of the High Court made on February 14, 1994 in CRP No.306/94. The suit for specific performance of agreement dated January 29, 1986 for the sale of 4840 sq. ft. of land in Madras city, laid by the respondent, was decreed ex-parte. The appellants had filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree which was dismissed by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court in revision. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
4. A reading of the facts leaves us with no doubt that the advocate has derelicted his duty to inform the client by registered post if there was any non-cooperation on behalf of the appellants. Consequently, when the suit had come up for trial, he has withdrawn his vakalatnama without notice to the respondents. The trial Court set the appellants ex-parte and decreed the suit for specific performance. The application for condonation of delay of 40 days was filed. The Court refused to condone the delay. In view of the above, we find that she is well justified in filing the application with the delay. The delay is accordingly condoned. The ex-parte decree is set aside. The trial Court is directed to give opportunity to the appellants to cross-examine the witness examined by the respondents of the suit and also adduce evidence on her behalf. The trial Court is further directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
5. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the learned single Judge of the High Court made on February 14, 1994 in CRP No.306/94. The suit for specific performance of agreement dated January 29, 1986 for the sale of 4840 sq. ft. of land in Madras city, laid by the respondent, was decreed ex-parte. The appellants had filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree which was dismissed by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court in revision. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
4. A reading of the facts leaves us with no doubt that the advocate has derelicted his duty to inform the client by registered post if there was any non-cooperation on behalf of the appellants. Consequently, when the suit had come up for trial, he has withdrawn his vakalatnama without notice to the respondents. The trial Court set the appellants ex-parte and decreed the suit for specific performance. The application for condonation of delay of 40 days was filed. The Court refused to condone the delay. In view of the above, we find that she is well justified in filing the application with the delay. The delay is accordingly condoned. The ex-parte decree is set aside. The trial Court is directed to give opportunity to the appellants to cross-examine the witness examined by the respondents of the suit and also adduce evidence on her behalf. The trial Court is further directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
5. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
