A party seeking to condone a delay in filing an appeal must satisfactorily explain the delay and prove special circumstances to set aside a decree passed against him.

This is an application filed by the defendant in the suit, under Order 14, Rule 12 of Original Side Rules, read with S. 151 of Civil Procedure Code to condone the delay of 255 days in filing the appeal against the order of the learned Master passed in the Application No. 3453 of 1989 dated 23-4-1990.

2. Application No. 1175 of 1991:

This is an application filed by the defendant under Order 14, Rule 12 and Order 7, Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules to set aside the order passed by the learned Master made in Application No. 3453 of 1989, on the grounds mentioned therein.

3. Application No. 1176 of 1991:

This application was filed by the defendant under Order 7, R. 9 of the Original Side Rules to set aside the decree passed in C.S. No. 127 of 1985 dated 21-6-1990 on the file of this Court.

4. Application No. 1177 of 1991:

This application was filed by the defendant under Order XIV, Rule-12 of the Original Side Rules and S. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the stay of the execution of the decree dated 21-6-1990, made in C.S. No. 127 of 1985 on the file of this Court, pending disposal of the appeal.

5. The short facts of the applicant/defendants case as culled out from all the four applications are as follows:—

On the basis of alleged violation of the stipulations made in an Agreement dated 30-9-1977 entered into between the parties herein committed by the applicant herein, the respondent has filed the above suit against the applicant to recover a sum of Rs. 4,16,845,81 under Order-VII of the rules of the Original Side of the Court and that accordingly, on the receipt of the suit summons, the applicant ought to have filed an application within ten days from thereof praying for an unconditional leave to defend the suit which he had not done, because one of the vital defences taken up by the applicant was that this court has no territorial jurisdiction and that pursuant thereto, an Application No. 329 of 1986 for revoking the leave granted by this Court in Application No. 605 of 1985 to file the above suit was initiated and that the same was dismissed by this Court on 10-2-1989 and again, O.S.A. No. 146 of 1989 preferred against the dismissal was also ended with the same fate on 17-7-1989 with the observation that it was open to the applicant to raise the question of jurisdiction in the trial of the suit. Then on 20-7-1989, within three days from the date of the disposal of the O.S.A. on 17-7-1989, the applicant filed two applications, one for condoning the delay of 1, 450 days in filing the application to leave to defend the suit and another one or unconditional leave to defend and that the application to condone the delay was taken to file and numbered as Application No. 3453 of 1989 and the other application was kept unnumbered.

[Discussioin of facts omitted -Ed]

xx xx xx

12. Under the circumstances, the points which arise for consideration are the following:—

“(1) Whether the applicant/defendant has satisfactorily explained the delay of 255 days by giving specific reasons as contemplated by law?

(2) Whether the learned Master has committed any error in passing the impugned order dated 23-4-1990?

(3) Whether the applicant is entitled to any relief claimed in the applications?

(4) What are the reliefs, if any the applicant is entitled to?”

13. It is the common case that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the above suit in Civil Suit No. 127 of 1985 against the applicant herein, viz., the defendant to recover the sum of Rs. 4,16,845-81, allegedly due as per the agreement dated 30-9-1977 under the special procedure contemplated under Order-7 of the Original Side Rules and that the defendant, viz., the applicant with a view to defend the suit ought to have obtained an unconditional leave to defend within 10 days from the date of the summons in the above suit as contemplated by law and procedure. It is seen that the plaint in the above suit as per the case records, was presented in the Court in the month of February 1985 aft