1996 INSC 0867
                                           Sushila Narahari and Others

                                                           Vs

                                             Nandakumar and Another

                                          Civil Appeal No. 9480 of 1996

                                      (K. Ramaswamy, G. B. Pattanaik JJ)

                                                      08.07.1996

                                                        ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

3. This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court
made on 14-2-1994 in CRP No. 306 of 1994. The suit for specific performance of agreement dated
29-1-1986 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.

4. 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Consequently, when the suit had come up for trial, he had withdrawn his vakalatnama without
notice to the appellants. The trial court set the appellants ex parte 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 trail 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.

5. The appeal is allowed. No costs.