SELVARAJ Vs. VASUDEVAN BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 26 and 27 in a suit to set aside a document and for partition are the appellants. They were impleaded by the plaintiff on the allegation that they were assignees of the third defendant. When the suit was decreed ex parte, they applied to have ex parte decree set aside. They also sought condonation of delay in making such application. It is true, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, that the delay in applying to set aside the ex parte decree is more than 1700 days. However, the fact of the matter remains that the present grievance of defendants 26 and 27 who have filed this Original Petition invoking Art. 227 of the Constitution is that they were, in fact, not heard in relation to the applications seeking condonation of delay and to have ex parte decree set aside. They plead that after a long lapse of time, they see that their applications were dismissed as "withdrawn". The certified copies of the applications to set aside the ex parte decree and for condonation of delay do not contain any endorsement that those applications are "withdrawn". Not only that, in the case in hand, going through the records, we see that there are serious allegations even against members of the bar, particularly, in the context of the fact that many of the parties to this litigation are themselves advocates.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners (defendants 26 and 27) made reference to Circular No. 28/68 and the judgment of this Court in Kannan v. Lakshmi,1970 KerLT 731 wherein, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, as he then was, noted that, that case was an instance which illustrates mischief's, contemplated in the aforesaid Circular meant for guidance of the subordinate courts when admissions or concessions were made by advocates during the course of proceedings.

(3.) Be that as it may, we proceed to consider certain other relevant legal issues.