The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with legal procedures and the availability of remedies under the Civil Procedure Code.

1. Admit.

Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The lower appellate Court on 07.11.2015 has condoned the delay of 959 days (in the application, mentioned as 1000 days) caused in filing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 260 of 2015, challenging the decree passed by the trial Court granting declaration of title and possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. This is the subject matter of challenge in this revision application.

3. The case of the respondent defendant before the lower appellate Court in the application for condonation of delay was that the respondent was not served in the matter and the decree passed by the trial Court was ex-parte. The lower appellate Court has recorded the finding in paragraph No. 9 of the impugned order, which is reproduced below.

"9. On perusal of the copies of Rojnama Exh.31, it appears that NAs filed application on 2.7.2009 before learned lower Court in Spl. Civil Suit No. 1308/2008 vide Exh.6 for grant of permission to issue notice through RPAD and same was issued to the applicant returnable on 4.8.2009. On 4.8.2009, the acknowledgment of the notice filed on record vide Exh.7. It appears that on 4.8.2009, 29.8.2009, 29.9.2009, 16.10.2009 and 19.11.2009, no appearance is filed on behalf of the applicant/defendant. It appears that on 10.12.2009, the defendant in person allegedly filed the pursis Exh.8 and admitted the claim of NAs/plaintiffs, and thereafter, the defendant is shown remained absent and the learned lower Court passed the order to proceed without written statement on 27.4.2011."

4. After referring to the provisions of Order VI, Rule 14A of C.P.C. the lower appellate Court holds in paragraph No. 12 of the impugned order, as under.

"12. On perusal of the above provisions in Civil Procedure Code, it appears that pleading when filed by a party, shall be accompanied by a statement in the prescribed form, signed as provided in rule 14, regarding the address of the party, and in the present case, no registered address is appearing on record. On perusal of rojnama, it appears that no registered address was filed by the applicant. There also appearing no signature of the counsel or anybody show that he knows the signatory of Exh.8 i.e. applicant. Therefore, decree passed by the learned lower Court suffers from legal infirmity. The learned lower Court failed to follow the prescribed procedure of law. The dispute in between the parties is in respect of immovable property. Therefore, the delay caused in preferring the appeal needs to be condoned."

5. The learned counsel appearing for the original plaintiff/applicant has invited my attention to paragraph No. 6 of the judgment delivered by the trial Court, wherein it is stated that the defendant received suit summons and by remaining personally present, filed a pursis at Exh.8, mentioning that, "as claimed by the plaintiff he is ready to give share in possession whatever they get. Agricultural land has been given on lease. He can give possession after "Gudipadwa". He again did not turn up to the Court."

6. The learned counsel invited my attention to the following decision of the Apex Court to urge that happenings in the Court during hearing as recorded in the judgment are conclusive and cannot be disputed in appeal and the only way to correct any mistake in recording is to call attention of very Judge who made the record.

1. Central Bank of India vs. Vrajlal Kapurchand Gandhi and Anr. AIR 2003 SC 3028

2. Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, AIR 1990 SC 371

3. Paul Niklav Rodrigues thr L.Rs and Anr. vs. Anthony Domnic D'Souza, AIR 2005 Bombay 114

4. Uttam Singh Dugal and Co. Ltd vs. Union Bank of India and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2740

5. Taste Hotels Pvt. Ltd vs. Medisetty Jayasri and Anr. AIR 2012 AP 4

6. Dr. K. Padmanabhan and Anr. vs. W.S. Nisha, 2002 (2) CCC 234 (Mad.)

He submits that the only remedy available for the respondent defendant was to file an application under Order IX