Inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecuting a claim may lead to dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.

This is a case in which a shockingly inordinate delay of seventeen years and odd has been condoned by the Master without any notice to the defendants. No doubt, Rules do not insist upon notice being given to the defendants in the matter of condonation of delay in re-presentation. There is a judgment of this Court on the appellate side that in matters of condonation of delay in re-presentation, no notice is required to the respondent. But, that rule cannot be applied automatically as a rule of thumb without any reference to the quantum of delay in the particular case.

2. This suit was presented on 14th July, 1967. The prayer in the suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,35,602.77. The claim related to the consignment of cargo discharged in Madras Port during June/July, 1966. The plaint was returned for rectification of certain defects on 18-7-1967. It was re-presented only on 17-10-1984 with an application for condonation of delay.

3. The affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay was filed by the Deputy Director (Food) of the office of the Regional Director (Food), Southern Region, Madras-1. The deponent of the affidavit did not know the facts personally. He got the facts stated in the affidavit from the records available in the office. According to the affidavit, the case was in charge of Mr. C. Rangasami Iyengar who was the junior Advocate on record and that the return of the plaint was taken by him.

4. The relevant portion in paragraph 3 of the affidavit reads as follows:

".... The same was got back by the said Junior Counsel and he has not represented the same. In this behalf this office has addressed various letters to the counsels to know the progress of the said suit. It was as I understand, that our office assistants also have personally contacted the said Junior Counsel to know about the progress of the suit. He seems to have been informed that the suit will be represented complying with the defects pointed out by the office and shortly thereafter the suit would be numbered.

4-A. Now I understand that the said plaint was not represented at all by the counsel. The said Junior Counsel, Thiru C. Rangaswami Iyengar, later became ill and he has not attended Court and there were changes of the Central Government Standing Counsels too. Our attempts to contact the said Thiru C. Rangaswami Iyengar. proved futile and later it was understood that he fell ill and admitted in some hospital. The particulars of which was not known to this office for a long time. Virtually all the suits of this department was in charge of the said counsel and the case papers were also with him. He has not chosen to return the same to our office nor to the subsequent counsel appointed. We addressed various letters to him, but we received no reply. Then some time last year we came to know that he settled at West Mambalam, with his son and he is also bed-ridden suffering from Cancer. Both this office and the Branch Secretariat, Ministry of Law at Madras, addressed letters to him directing him to handover the cause papers to the present counsel with all particulars to further prosecute the matters. As no reply was received from him, our office assistant went to his residence and found him ailing and that he was serious and even now he is unable to move about or able to sit. Then it was suggested to him to arrange the cause papers through his clerk to enable us to get back the same from him.

5. Significantly no supporting affidavit was filed by the clerk of the said Junior Counsel Thiru C. Rangaswami Iyengar, even though reference was made to the role played by the clerk, in the affidavit of the departmental Officer. Nor was any attempt made to get any written statement, memo or affidavit from the said Thiru C. Rangaswami Iyengar. The correspondence said to have been effected between the officials of the department and the Junior Counsel was not produced before Court. No affidavits were obtained from the office assistants who a