AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Kulasekaran, J.—This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge allowing the application to condone the delay of
533 days in filing a petition for setting aside the exparte preliminary decree dated 30-07-''2001 passed in C.S. No. 372 of 1998. The respondent
herein has engaged his previous counsel for entering appearance and entrusted vakalath duly signed by him on 24-09-2001. He was under the
bonafide impression that the counsel would take care of the case. Whereas, the previous counsel has presented the Vakalath only on 19-09-2002
and even prior to the signing of the vakalath, he was set exparte on 30-07-2001, which he was not aware. The learned single judge felt that though
the respondent was not vigilant, his failure should not have been made a ground for ousting him from the litigation, which involves the property
worth several crores.
The learned single Judge, after affording opportunity to the parties and relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (M.K. Prasad Vs.
P. Arumugam) (2001) 6 SCC 1761 has exercised discretion to advance substantial justice since found that the property involved belonged to
respondent worth about several crores and condoned the delay subject to payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/-. It is an admitted fact that the said
costs was received by the appellant herein without any protest.
It is also seen from the records that after receipt of the cost, even without giving any notice of protest, the present appeal has been filed. We are
of the view that the learned single Judge has rightly exercised his discretion and allowed the application. We do not find any infirmity in the order
impugned. Hence, the appeal fails, liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs. Connected CMP is closed.