Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
SUSHILA NARAHARI & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
NANDAKUMAR & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/07/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (6) 727 1996 SCALE (5)494
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This 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
decreted 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.
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for trial, he has withdrawn his vakalatnama without notice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
exparte 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.
The appeal is allowed. No costs.