A B GOVARDHAN Vs. P RAGOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner executed a vakalat authorizing Thiru.V.Manohar, Advocate and three of his juniors, to appear in O.S.A.SR.No.11697 of 2011, and also in the related appeal, the appeal under Section 15 of the Letters Patent and application for leave to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in all applications for review of the judgment. The vakalat was executed on 31 March 2011. Thiru.V.Manohar, on the strength of the said vakalat appeared on behalf of the petitioner even after registering the appeal. Since there was no representation continuously on the side of the petitioner, in spite of printing the name of the counsel in the cause list, the original side appeal was taken up for final hearing. The original side appeal was allowed by Judgment and Decree dated 22 February 2017. The petitioner has now come up with a strange contention that his erstwhile counsel was authorized only to appear in the miscellaneous petition filed to condone the delay and that there was no notice issued to him after registering the appeal.

(2.) The suit filed by the petitioner in C.S.No.701/2005 for a mortgage decree was allowed by the learned single Judge with interest @ 36% p.a. The decree dated 1 April 2010 was taken up in appeal by the respondent along with an application to condone the delay. The Registry issued notice to the respondent in the said application. The respondent entered appearance through Thiru.V.Manohar, Advocate. The application to condone the delay was allowed subject to the condition that the respondent herein shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- by way of cost to the petitioner. The petitioner received the cost on 26 April 2011. Thereafter, the appeal was taken on file. The name of Thiru.V.Manohar continued to be printed in the cause list, in view of the vakalat filed by him. However, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner continuously. The Division Bench therefore heard the appeal on 9 February 2017 and delivered the judgment on 22 February 2017.

(3.) The petitioner has come up with this application to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 22 February 2017 on the ground that he was not aware of the pendency of the proceedings. It is the contention of the petitioner that notice was not issued to him after registering the appeal. It was his further contention that Thiru.V.Manohar, Advocate, was not authorized to appear in the original side appeal. According to the petitioner, the reported judgment was found by the Trial Court lawyer and immediately thereafter, he engaged a counsel to file the application to set aside the judgment.