A KSHARAFUDIN Vs. SJAGADEESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case. It is unfortunate for the appellant as the plight in which he is placed is not due to his own fault, but due, to the carelessness of the lawyer whom he engaged to defend the suit filed against him, to the indifference of the lawyer who had agreed to look after the case -- in case he had been asked to do so and to the incapacity of the lawyer who took a defective vakalat from him and filed a defective miscellaneous petition to set aside the ex parte decree.

(2.) A Suit in O.S. 22 of 48-49 was filed against the appellant. He engaged Sri Seetharamiah as his counsel. A statement was filed and the case was posted for reply statement to 24th March 1949. A memo for particulars was filed and the case was posted for particulars being furnished on 17th May 1949. Sri T. Seetharamiah had gone away on a tour in Northern India and according to his evidence he had asked Sri Sundara Rao to attend to his cases. Sri Sundara Rao did not appear for appellant on 17th May 1949, but some other advocate appeared and took an adjournment till 25th May 1949. Nobody appeared for the defendant in that case on that day and the suit was decreed ex parte. It may be noticed here that the office had put up a note that some of the items of suit claim were barred and it had been noted in the order sheet that this matter was reserved for consideration at a later stage. This was not considered, however, at the time the case was finally disposed of.

(3.) As pointed out by the learned Subordinate Judge: