(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) WE have heard Shri M.C. Bhandare, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Shri Satish Chandra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.

(3) IT is urged that the judgment and decree of the High court dated 10/2/1992 under appeal which, in turn, affirmed the decree of reversal of the first-appellate court dated 3/12/1976 requires to be set aside on ground alone that unfortunately the judgment which had been reserved on 3/10/1985 was rendered after the lapse of nearly seven years on 10/2/1992.

(4) WE do not propose to examine the larger question whether long delay, by itself, can as a matter of law affect the validity of the judgment. Appellants contention is that the appellants, who lost in the High court, should not have the apprehension that the arguments addressed seven years ago might not have come to be fully appreciated at the time of the writing of the judgment seven years later.

(5) THERE is yet another infirmity urged by the appellants. They contend that the judgment was not notified for pronouncement in the open court. They have appended to the memorandum of appeal the cause-list of the particular bench for