Madras High Court
OSA/362/2003 of LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD., Vs FUTNANI DAIRY FARM, on 15 December 2003
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15/12/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15/12/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. DHINAKARandTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARANO.S.A. No. 362 of 2003andC.M.P. No. 15995 of 2003
LIC Housing Finance Limitedrep. by its Regional Manager15, Abdul Razaque StreetSaidapet, Chennai — 15 ... Appellant -Vs- Futnani Diary Farmrep. by its Managing DirectorMadhusudan FutnaniNo.146, Sembudoss StreetChennai — 600 001 ... Respondent Appeal Under Section 36 Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause15 of the Letters Patent against the Judgment and Decree dated 25-09-2003passed in application NO. 900 of 2003 in C.S. No. 372 of 1998 .
!For Appellant : Mr. G.N. Sridharan
^For Respondents : Mr. R. Thiagarajan
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by A. KULASEKARAN, J)
This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judgeallowing the application to condone the delay of 533 days in filing a petitionfor setting aside the exparte preliminary decree dated 30 -07-2001 passed inC.S. No. 372 of 1998.
2. The respondent herein has engaged his previous counsel forentering 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 on19-09-2002 and even prior to the signing of the vakalath, he was set exparteon 30-07-2001, which he was not aware. The learned single judge felt thatthough the respondent was not vigilant, his failure should not have been madea ground for ousting him from the litigation, which involves the propertyworth several crores.
3. The learned single Judge, after affording opportunity to theparties and relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (M.K.Prasad Vs. P. Arumugam) (2001) 6 SCC Page No.1761 has exercised discretionto advance substantial justice since found that the property involved belongedto respondent worth about several crores and condoned the delay subject topayment of costs of Rs.50,000/-. It is an admitted fact that the said costswas received by the appellant herein without any protest.
4. It is also seen from the records that after receipt of thecost, even without giving any notice of protest, the present appeal has beenfiled. We are of the view that the learned single Judge has rightly exercisedhis discretion and allowed the application. We do not find any infirmity inthe order impugned.
Hence, the appeal fails, liable to be dismissed and accordinglydismissed. No costs. Connected CMP is closed.
rsh