( 1 ) THE short facts of the case are appear to be that a suit came to be filed against the petitioner by the respondent society for recovery of Rs. 2,43,410/-with interest at the rate of 4% p. a. being Lavad suit No. 1781/89 before the Registrar, Board of Nominees. It is the case of the petitioner that the said suit was filed on the basis that the petitioner was the President of the society and he had misappropriated certain material of the society and the society had suffered damages and also loss of material and therefore the amount was sought to be recovered in the said suit. It is the case of the petitioner that after the summons were served advocate was engaged by him, however, for one reason or the other the written statement was not filed and the suit proceeded exparte before the Ld. Nominee and ultimately as per the judgment and award dated 1. 4. 91 the suit was decreed and award was passed for recovery of Rs. 2,43,41. 34ps with interest at the rate of 12% on Rs. 1,21,715. 11ps. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware about the exparte judgment and award passed by the Ld. Nominee and when the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid judgment and award of the Ld. Nominee on 31. 12. 1992, immediately appeal was preferred by the petitioner being Appeal No. 54/93, but since the judgment and award of the Nominee was dated 1. 4. 91 the application for condonation of delay was also submitted. As per the petitioner the Ld. tribunal heard the application for condonation of delay and thereafter the order below application for condonation of delay was reserved. However, the petitioner learnt subsequently that the learned tribunal as per order dated 6. 8. 93 dismissed the appeal. Therefore, under the circumstances, the present petition.

( 2 ) IN this petition initially when the notice came to be issued on 20. 8. 93 the stay against the execution was granted on condition of depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/ -. It may be stated that prior to the present petition, pending the matter before the tribunal stay was granted on condition of depositing sum of Rs. 10,000/- Thereafter on 16. 8. 94 this court directed the petitioner to further deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/ -. It is the case of the petitioner that accordingly the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in all pursuant to the interim orders passed in the proceedings before the tribunal as well as before this court. It may also be stated that on 31. 8. 94 when this court considered the matter for admission nobody had remained present on behalf of respondents though they were served and the court admitted the matter and had confirmed the interim relief. Today also the name of Mr. Gandhi is shown, but nobody has appeared on behalf of respondents. Since the matter is of 1993 I find it proper to proceed with the hearing in accordance with law.

( 3 ) MR. PARIKH, Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted, interalia, that as such there is good defence on the part of the petitioner in as much as he submitted that towards alleged misappropriation the criminal complaint was filed and also said complaint the police had submitted inquiry report qua the petitioner and it was found in the police inquiry that no misappropriation is not committed by the petitioner but by somebody else. Mr. Parikh submitted that as such the tribunal heard the application for condonation of delay but instead of rendering decision below application for condonation of delay the tribunal without giving opportunity to the petitioner to make submitted on merits decided the appeal itself and has dismissed the appeal. Therefore, he submitted that when before the learned nominee matter has proceeded exparte, may be on account of default committed by the lawyer engaged by the petitioner, but since there was good defence available to the petitioner, this court may consider the matter for remanding the same to the learned nominee instead of directing the matter to be