Direction given by Dy Registrar can be held proper.

SRINIVASAN, J.

C.M.P. No. 9360 of 1993 :-This petition is for condonation of delay of 2, 092 days in representing the appeal in AS.SR. No. 55107 of 1987. The appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 3262 of 1978 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil, Madras. The appeal was originally presented in this Court on 6-7-1987. The papers were returned on 18-9-1987 by the Registry for rectification of certain defects. The papers bear the seal of 25-6-1993 as if they were represented on that date. There is no sort of endorsement by the counsel at the time of the alleged representation. The papers were returned by the Registry and the concerned Appeal Examiner has made an endorsement of return on that date itself. One of the returns raised a query as to how this Court is the proper forum to entertain the appeal when the value of the suit in Rs. 26, 585/-, that is below Rs. 30, 000/-. The Deputy Registrar had initialled the return and made an endorsement,

"Time 10 days for representation to proper Court."

2. The Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to make that order. The return was only to enquire the advocate as to how this Court was the proper forum. After the advocate to give his answer, the matter should be placed before Court for appropriate orders. Moreover, there was a delay of nearly six years by that time in representation and without posting the matter before Court to decide the question whether the delay in representation should be condoned, the Deputy Registrar should not have directed representation to proper Court.

3. The papers were presented in the City Civil Court, Madras, on 30-6-1993. The City Civil Court returned the papers on 5-7-1993. One of the endorsements was that the delay in representation should be condoned by the High Court, under the Appellate Side Rules. Again the papers were presented in this Court on 8-7-1993 for condonation of delay in representation. The Deputy Registrar returned the papers on the ground that the value of the subject matter being below Rs. 30, 000/-, it is only the City Civil Court which is having jurisdiction. The papers were represented on 15-7-1993 in the City Civil Court once again.

4. The suit out of which the appeal arose was heard and disposed of by a common judgment along with No. 2353 of 1981. Against the judgment and decree in the said suit, an appeal was filed in this Court and numbered as A.S. No. 387 of 1987. That appeal was posted in the list for final hearing. It came before us on 15-7-1993. When the appeal was taken up for hearing and the appellants counsel stated the facts, learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection that the appeal is barred by res judicata as there was no appeal against the judgment in the connected suit O.S. No. 3262 of 1978 against which the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the appeal was presented wrongly in this Court earlier and after return of the papers, it was represented in the City Civil Court. He gave the Stamp Register Number of the appeal as well as the stamp register number of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by him to the City Civil Court for condonation of delay in representation. We passed an order on 15-7-1993 adjourning the said Appeal No. 387 of 1987 to this date a and withdrawing the papers in the present appeal from the City Civil Court. We directed the City Civil Court to send all the records to this Court on or before 19-7-1993. Thus, the papers in this appeal have come before us to-day.

5. The petition, for condodation of delay is supported by an affidavit filed by a junior counsel. It is stated in the affidavit that the two appeals were filed in time against the judgment in both the suits and in one of them an urgent application for stay was filed and moved and, therefore, that appeal got numbered earlier. In so far as the present appeal is concerned, it is stated in the affidavit that the papers were returned by th