SUSHILA NARAHARI AND ORS.versusNANDA KUMAR AND ANR.

A                       SUSHILA NARAHARI AND ORS.
                                    v.
                          NANDA KUMAR AND ANR.

                                   JULY 8, 1996

B                [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
                               .
            Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 9 Rules 13 and 14.

            Ex-pane decrec--Setting aside of-Respondent's suit for specific per-
C fo11nancl~Ex-pmte decrec--Application for setting aside of by appellant-
    Delay in filing-Delay due to advocate's dereliction i11 duty in withdrawing
     Vakalat11ama without notice to party-Held in such circumsta11ces delay in
    filing the application was justified-Delay co11do11ed and ex pmte decree set
    aside.

D           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9480 of
    1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.94 of the Madras High
    Court in C.R.P. No. 306 of 1994.

E           M.A. Krishna Moorthy for the Appellants.

            Dr. A. Francis Julian and A. Mariarputham for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

F           Leave granted.

            We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

           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.
G   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.

H           A reading of the facts leaves us with no doubt that the advocate has
                                          208
                   SU SHILA NARA.HAR! v. NANDA KR.                       209

derelicted his duty to inform the client by registered post if there was any    A
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had come up for trial, he has withdrawn his vakalatnama without notice to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 appellants. The trial Court set the appellants ex pmte 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
                                                                                B
above, we find that she is_ well justified in filing the application with the
delay. The delay is accordingly condoned. The ex-pwte decree is set aside.
The trial Court is di_rected to give opportunity to the appellants to cross-
examine the witness examined by the respondent 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       C
year from the date of receipt of the copy of the order The appeal is
allowed. No costs.

T.N.A.                                                      Appeal allowed.