C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) RESPONDENT filed the suit for recovery of amount covered by the suit promissory note, which was dismissed for default on 2-5-2000. Subsequently, respondent filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 9 C. P. C. to restore the suit with a petition to condone delay of 389 days, with the affidavit sworn to by the counsel for the respondent in the trial court, explaining the reasons for the delay. The Court below accepted the explanation and condoned the delay. Hence this revision by the defendant.

( 2 ) IN the affidavit sworn to by the counsel for respondent in the trial Court he stated that his clerk wrongly noted the suit number as 8 of 2000 instead of 7 of 2000 and so he was following proceedings as recorded in the B-diary of the court in respect of o. S. No. 8 of 2000, and only when the respondent approached him, after proper verification, he came to know that the suit number was wrongly noted and that the suit of respondent was dismissed for default for non-representation, and since the lapse was on his part but not on the part of the respondent the delay occurred in filing the petition for restoration may be condoned.

( 3 ) THE main contention of the learned co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document