ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The plaintiff-respondent filed suit, which was decreed ex-parte on 12-12-95. It is alleged by the defendant-appellant that he came to know for the first time about the ex-parte decree on 10-3-97 when a notice in execution proceedings was served on him and, therefore, under such circumstances, he moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Since there was a delay of 469 days in moving the said application, the appellant, filed an application for condonation of delay. The trial court after condoning delay set aside the ex-parte decree. Plaintiff-respondents thereafter filed a revision petition before the High Court which was allowed and the order of the trial court was set aside. It is against the said judgment of the High Court the appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave.

3. We have looked into the record and found that the appellant has made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay in moving the application for setting aside the ex-parte order of the trial court. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of the trial court in its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the judgment under challenge is set aside.

4. The appeal is allowed. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit. No costs.

Appeal allowed.

****************

Parallel Citations of other Journals :

K. Ganesan v. Sakunthalal & Ors., 2001(6) Supreme 177 : 2001 (3) CCC 222

00020