SUNDAR GNANAOLIVU Vs. RAJENDRAN GNANAVOLIVU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed on behalf of the petitioner who was the defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 7414 of 1996, for condoning the delay of 431 days in filing the first appeal. The suit was laid by the respondent herein for declaration of title as well as for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property which is a Flat, namely, Flat No. 1/D, situate in the first floor of the building "Marble Arch", No. 4 & 5, Wallers Avenue East, Mylapore, Madras-4 within the Corporation Division No. 101.

(2.) THE petitioner is represented herein by his Power of Attorney Holder, one Tmt. Rukmani. According to the petitioner, after the above suit was decreed in favour of the respondent on 2-8-1999, the counsel was instructed to apply for certified copies of the Judgment and Decree, that the petitioner who is in abroad, having given power of attorney in favour of his agent, it was left to the Power Agent to follow up further, that the Power Agent being an aged person, was suffering from Diabetes and Hypertension, that she got admitted in a hospital at Vellore for treatment, that the counsel who informed her earlier that after the receipt of the certified copies of the Judgment and Decree would contact her, did not send any communication, that the Power Agent who was admitted in the hospital on 1-11-1999 was discharged only on 31 -12-1999, that even thereafter, she was advised to take bed rest, that due to her ill health, at the insistence of her son, she had to stay at Vellore for more than a year from 1-1-2000 for the purpose of consulting the local doctors, that she also suffered from Arthritis which prevented her free movement, that in the mean time, when she contacted the counsel at Chennai, she was informed that the order copy was not made ready, that subsequently, at the instance of the respondent, Court Bailiff went to the suit property for taking delivery the tenant of the petitioner who was in possession of the suit schedule property intimated the Power Agent and thereafter only she came to know that there was some problem in getting the certified copies of the Judgment and Decree.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. P. Ranganatha Reddy for M/s. King & Patridge, appearing for the respondent would contend that there was no bona fide at all in the case of the petitioner in moving the present application for condoning the delay of enormous delay of more than a year and since sufficient cause has not been shown covering the entire period of delay, the application is liable to be rejected.