REKHA SHARMA, J.

The appellant before me is the Indian Institute of Science. It had filed a suit against the respondent, namely, National Building Construction Corporation Limited for the recovery of a sum of Rs.12,16,443/-. The suit was instituted in this Court, i.e. the High Court of Delhi on October 24, 1992. In response to the suit, the respondent not only filed written statement and thereby disputed the claim of the appellant but also raised its own claim against the appellant for a sum of Rs.16,65,028.34P. That was done by way of counter-claim which was registered as C.C. No.2498 of 1994.

2. The appellant was represented in the suit as well as in the counter-claim through a counsel but only till April 05, 2000. Thereafter, none appeared for the appellant. Hence, on September 19, 2000 the suit was dismissed in default and in the counter-claim, the appellant was proceeded ex-parte. The counter-claim was at the stage of final hearing when it was transferred to the Court of the District Judge at Tis Hazari, Delhi, as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court in the meanwhile got raised to Rs.20 lacs and the matter, thus, was to be heard at the level of District Judge/Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge who heard the matter vide his order dated March 20, 2004 decreed the counter-claim of the respondent for a sum of Rs.16,65,028.34P. and also awarded interest @ 12% per annum on that amount from the date of institution of the counter-claim till the date of realization, along with cost of the counter-claim.

3. The appellant, in the meanwhile, remained blissfully unaware of the dismissal of its suit and the decree passed against it in the counter-claim of the respondent. It says that it came to know about the decree against it only in the beginning of the year 2006 in a meeting held between its Registrar and the officers of the respondent. Consequent thereto, it made a request to the officers of the respondent to furnish particulars of the decree which were made available to it in the middle of 2006. Thereafter, in the first week of July, 2006 it contacted a Supreme Court lawyer through whom it came to know the details of the decree and further came to know that its’ own suit for the recovery of Rs.12,16,443/- was dismissed in default on September 19, 2000. Armed with this information, its officers visited Delhi in the middle of August, 2006 to discuss the matter with a local lawyer. Finally, a decision was taken to file an appropriate application for restoration of the suit and for setting-aside of the ex-parte decree. Hence, three applications were filed on October 03, 2006; one under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) for setting-aside of the order dated September 19, 2000 dismissing the suit in default; the other under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting-aside of the ex-parte decree dated March 20, 2004 passed in the counter-claim of the respondent, and the third under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the said two applications. The learned Additional District Judge who heard the applications dismissed the same vide order dated October 12, 2006 holding that they were filed much after the expiry of the period of limitation and that the application for condonation of delay did not disclose sufficient ground to condone the delay. It is this order of October 12, 2006 against which the present appeal has been preferred.

4. The only reason that has been put-forth by the appellant in not prosecuting the suit and in not contesting the counter-claim of the respondent after April 05, 2000 is the frequent changes in its administrative set-up at the level of the Registrar and in its Estate Office at the level of Project Engineer-cum-Estate Officer from the date of institution of the suit in the year 1992 till the year 2006, resulting in lack of supervision and follow-up with the A