08 July 1996
Supreme Court
Download

SUSHILA NARABHARI Vs NANDAKUMAR

Bench: RAMASWAMY,K.
Case number: C.A. No.-009480-009480 / 1996
Diary number: 660 / 1996
Advocates: Vs ARPUTHAM ARUNA AND CO


1

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 Consequently,  when the suit had come up for trial,  he has  withdrawn his vakalatnama without notice to the  respondents.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.