Length of delay does not matter.

Common Judgment: (P. Sathasivam, J.)

O.S.A.No.44 of 2005 has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 10.03.2005 made in Application No.4607 of 2004, in and by which the learned Judge condoned the delay of 1251 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 21.03.2001 made in C.S.No.703 of 1996, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the State Legal Services Authority, Chennai, within 15 days from that date.

2. O.S.A.No.64 of 2005 is filed against the order dated 01.04.2005, granting restricted stay in Application No.1671 of 2005 in E.P.No.23 of 2005. Since, OSA.No.64 of 2005 is against the consequential order passed by the learned single Judge, it depends on the outcome of OSA.No.44 of 2005.

3. The brief facts which are required for the disposal of the above appeals are stated hereunder:

(a) The respondent herein entered into an agreement of sale in respect of his property at No.12-B, 4th West Cross, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030 with one S.K.M. Ibrahim, husband of the second appellant herein for a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- and received a sum of Rs.6,80,000/- during the period 1995-96. But subsequently, the respondent refused to execute the sale deed. So, the said S.K.M. Ibrahim, instituted a suit in C.S.No.703 of 1996 on the file of Original Side of this Court against the respondent for specific performance. The said suit was decreed on 21.03.2001 in favour of S.K.M. Ibrahim. Pursuant to the decree, he also deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs.11,70,000/- on 11.07.2001 to the credit of the said suit as directed by this Court. The said money is lying in the Court deposit for the past more than four years. The said S.K.M. Ibrahim died on 27.02.2002, leaving the appellants herein as his legal heirs. They filed Application Nos.5418 and 5419 of 2002 for rescinding the contract and for refund of money. The respondent opposed the said applications and they were dismissed. Thereafter, the appellants filed E.P.No.42 of 2004 for execution of the decree and the same was ordered on 21.10.2004. Consequently, the sale deed was executed by the Assistant Registrar-I of this Court on 15.02.2005 and registered as Document No.512 of 2005 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Anna Nagar.

(b) In the meantime, the respondent herein filed applications to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree and for stay of the execution proceedings. The application to condone the delay of 1251 days has been numbered as Application No.4607 of 2004. The only reason stated by the respondent was that he came to know about the ex parte decree passed on 21.03.2001 in April, 2004, after receipt of notice in E.P.No.42 of 2004. The appellants filed a counter affidavit opposing the said application. The learned single Judge by order dated 10.03.2005, allowed the application to condone the delay on the sole ground that the amount involved in the suit is huge. Questioning the same, the respondents therein/ appellants filed OSA.No.44 of 2005.

4. Heard Mr. K. Doraisamy, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. At the outset, Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent raised an objection that the order of the learned single Judge condoning the delay is not a "Judgment" in terms of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and hence, the present original side appeal is not maintainable. Even otherwise, according to him, since the respondent has shown sufficient cause, the learned Judge is perfectly right in condoning the delay of 1251 days. With regard to maintainability, Mr. K. Doraisamy, learned senior counsel for the appellants would submit that though the impugned order was passed in an interlocutory application, since the respondent has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material events, namely, participation in the execution proceedings and since the impugned order of the lea