Mool Chand Garg, J.— The basic issue involved in this case is as to whether the Additional District Judge was justified in having dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree, dated 13.9.1996 passed against them despite having condoned the delay in filing of the said application vide order dated 11.11.1995 primarily by accepting the case of the appellants that they had no knowledge about the transfer of civil suit which was originally filed by the respondent against the appellants in this court to the District Court.

2. To appreciate the controversy between the parties it would be appropriate to take note of the order passed by the Additional District Judge dated 11.11.1995, whereby the Additional District Judge condoned the delay of about 8 years in filing the application under order 9 Rule 13, CPC. The reasons given by the Additional District Judge are as follows:

5. The learned Counsel for the defendants/JDs has argued that there was no knowledge of passing the Judgment/decree against the defendants since the defendants were solely dependent upon their Counsel and even no notice was issued to the defendants after transfer of the case from the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi to the District Courts, Delhi. The defendants have also field copies of the letters and reminders written to the Government counsel on page Nos. 1to 26 in support of their application. Learned Counsel for the defendants in support of his arguments has relied upon the judgment as reported in Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K.V. Ayisumma, AIR1996 SC 2750, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that ‘’it is now settled law that when the delay was occasioned at the behest of the Government , it would be very difficult to explain the day-to-day delay. The transaction, of the business of the Government being done leisurely by officers who had no or evince no personal interest at different levels. No one takes personal responsibility in processing the matters expeditiously. As a fact at several stages, they take their own time to reach a decision. Even inspite of pointing at the delay, they do not take expeditious action for ultimate decision in filing the appeal. This case is one of such instances. It is true that Section,5 of the Limitation Act envisages explanation of the delay to the satisfaction of the Court and in matters of Limitation Act made no distinction between the State and the citizen. Nonetheless adoption of strict standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice, it would result in public mischief by skilful management of delay in the process of filing the appeal. The approach of the Court would be pragmatic but not pedantic. Under those circumstance, the Subordinate Judge had rightly adopted correct approach and had condoned the delay without insisting upon explaining every day’ delay in filing the review application in the light of the law laid down by this Court. The High Court was not right in setting aside order. Delay was rightly condoned’’. In Bank of India v. M/s Mehta Brothers Ors. AIR 1991 Delhi 194. In this case, ex parte decree was passed. Application was filed for setting aside ex parte decree stating reason that defendant entrusted the case to a firm of solicitors- default of appearance once committed by lawyer continued on all subsequent dates- however Defendant, remaining under belief that its case was being conducted all along by its lawyers –Defendant, moment it was informed of passing of ex parte decree, taking immediate steps. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that so far as defendant was concerned, there was sufficient cause for setting aside ex parte decree and condoning ,delay in filing application for setting aside decree. In Devendra Swamy v. Karnataka State Rode Transport Corpn., AIR 2002 SC1545. In this case , the lawyer engaged by the respondent-Corporation was holding the papers and did not infor