CANARA BANK Vs. B SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a suit seeking recovery of money. THE Trial Court by the order dated 31-8-2005 dismissed the suit for default. Aggrieved by the same, Miscellaneous Petition No. 808 of 2005 was filed along with an application for condoning the delay since there was delay in filing the miscellaneous petition. THE miscellaneous petition was rejected on the ground that no sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

(2.) Sri Urval Ramanand, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that due to the mistake of a lawyer not being present when the matter was called the impugned order has been passed by the Trial Court. On the sole ground that the name of the Advocate who was responsible for the same was not mentioned in the affidavit, the miscellaneous petition was also rejected. Hence, he pleads that the impugned order be set aside.