ARUN ALEXANDER LAKSHMAN PROPRIETOR M/S ALRAJ BUILDERS NO 15 FIRST MAIN ROAD KUMARAN NAGAR Vs. A P VEDAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in A. No. 2322/2006 in Tr. C. S. No. 578/2002 declining to condone the delay of 714 days in filing the application under Or. 9 R. 13 CPC and dismissing the Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) BRIEF facts are as follows :- The appellants/defendants entered into a joint venture agreement in March 1998 with the respondent/ plaintiff for developing her property situated at Aminjakarai. Dispute arose between the parties and hence the terms of Agreement could not be carried out and dispute led to filing of suits by both parties. Appellants/defendants filed C. S. No. 113/2001 on the file of High Court for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- by way of damages from the respondent/plaintiff. Respondent/plaintiff has filed O. S. No. 86/2002 [instituted as informa pauperis] for declaration that the Agreement dated 06. 04. 1998 stood cancelled because of the non performance of the part of the agreement by the first Defendant and for a declaration that the Sale Deed dated 31. 03. 1999 executed in favour of the third Defendant is null and void and for permanent Injunction. The suit was transferred to High Court and renumbered as c. S. No. 578/2002. The matter was posted in the list for trial and because of non appearance of appellant, the suit was decreed exparte in the year 2002. The appellants filed application A. No. 5460/ 2003 to set aside the exparte Decree passed against them, which was allowed on cost of Rs. 25,000/ -. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants preferred O. S. A. No. 7/2004 wherein the Division Bench has confirmed the order directing the appellants to deposit a sum of rs. 25,000/- within two weeks from the date of the order. In compliance with the said condition, the appellants have deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 28. 01. 2004. Thereafter, the suit was again listed and decreed exparte on 10. 03. 2004.

(3.) THE respondent/plaintiff inter-alia resisted the application contending that the appellant had knowledge of the Decree passed on 10. 03. 2004 and have not taken immediate steps to set aside the same. According to the plaintiff, the application has been filed to delay the execution proceedings and the appellants have adopted dilatory tactics to defeat the claim of the plaintiff.