LAWS(MAD)-2008-9-342

DHANALAKSHMI FINANCIERS Vs. SOUNDARAMMAL

Decided On September 08, 2008
DHANALAKSHMI FINANCIERS Appellant
V/S
SOUNDARAMMAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the affidavit of the petitioner's/plaintiff's advocate, the following averments are found:1.(i) The junior advocate of the plaintiff's counsel affirms that the suit bundle was returned for some corrections from the Court, however, the bundle mingled with other bundles in the advocate's office and hence he could not represent in the court in time, therefore, 1573 days delay has occurred in representing the petition, which may be condoned.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the first defendant/first defendant, it is stated as below:2. (i) The petition is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed in limini. The alleged reasons stated by the petitioner is not at all valid to condone the delay of 1573 days. It is not correct to state that the bundle got mingled with other bundles in the advocate office and the person who has filed the affidavit is not having vakalat in the suit. There is no merit in the petition and the petition has to be dismissed.

(3.) THE back drop of the circumstance under which the petition was filed for condoning delay has to be considered in the light of the facts discernible in this case and the law settled in this regard. Factually, one has to admit that the reasons assigned in the affidavit are as vague as possible and it may be usual allegations that the bundle got mixed with other bundles in the Advocate's office which could not be traced out for the purpose of representation in time. However, if the said reason is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, there could be no embargo on the part of the court to condone the delay. THE fifth respondent has assailed the reasons mentioned in the affidavit by stating that it contains usual reasons which have been made in a casual manner and that no particulars are available with reference to return of case bundle. It is to be seen that the petitioner counsel's junior advocate has affirmed the affidavit. Hence some sanctity has to be attached to it. Still the court has to hesitate to entertain those reasons if the same is not depicting the facts properly. It is also contended that Mr. Palanisamy, advocate who has filed the affidavit has no vakalat in this case.