Narahari & Ors Vs. Nandakumar & Anr  INSC 760 (8 July 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
JT 1996 (6) 727 1996 SCALE (5)494
O R D
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
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
this appeal by special leave.
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come up for trial, he has withdrawn his vakalatnama without notice to the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
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
appeal is allowed. No costs.