FIITJEE LTD Vs. KANWAL SUJIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment I shall dispose of these two appeals between the same parties. RFA 669/2003 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.5.2003 whereby a decree for recovery of Rs.488664/- with cost and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum, was passed in favour of respondent and against the appellants whereas RFA 373/2004 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.3.2001 whereby a decree under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs.3,85,000/- with cost and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum was passed in favour of the respondent and against the appellants and Order dated 24.5.2002 whereby the application of the appellants under Order XXXVII Rule 3(7) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 4 thereof was dismissed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of these appeals can be summarized as under:

(3.) In suit No. 225/2000 filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit summons were served upon the appellants on 25.02.2001. They did not put appearance within the prescribed period of 10 days and accordingly, a decree against them was passed on 15.3.2001. The application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (7) of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed by the appellants seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 15.3.2001 on the ground that the file of the case was mixed up with the file of the other suit i.e. 226/2000 which was listed for hearing on 23.4.2001. It was also alleged in the application that the counsel for the appellants was under a mistaken belief that they had to first appear before the Court on 15.3.2001 and thereafter apply for leave to contest. The learned trial Judge noted that the appellants was not an uneducated person and negligence of the counsel was not a sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the appearance. He accordingly dismissed the application.