9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri, and as per an oral understanding between the two (which was subsequently reduced into writing under an agreement dated ')A 3.1959) it was agreed that in case the purchase amounts constituting the sale deeds were repaid within three years, the properties would be re-conveyed on payment of 10% in addition to the sale price, etc. It appears that some time in May 1960 Mrs. Buhari, despite notice, failed to re-convey the suit property on which Ramakrishna Mudaliar and his son Matha Prasad, the present appellant, through his first wife filed Suit No. C.S. No. 43/1962 for specific performance of the agreement of re-conveyance dated 24.3.1959. The said suit was decreed on 10.11.1965 on which Mr. Buhari and Mrs. Buhari filed two appeals. A D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Nos. 2005-2006/1998 praying that they be impleaded as parties in the Execution Petition. The Master of the High Court in his order dated 19.4.1999 issued notice to the legal representatives of Ramakrishna Mudahar and also directed Matha Prasad to take steps to serve them for 10.6.1999 and the applicant/assignees were also directed to file the assignment deeds executed by the legal representatives of Ramakrishna Mudaliar. Matha Prasad, however, filed Application Nos. 1106-1108/2000 seeking a recall of the order of the Master dated 19.4.1999 and also a stay of the proceedings pending before him. The learned Single Judge in his order dated 3.7.2000 set aside the order dated 19.4.1999 and dismissed the applications. Pursuant to this order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at two matters were required to be considered: (1) whether the appellants had properly explained the delay of 971 days? and (2) whether the appellants were entitled to canvas the case on merits in Application Nos. 1106-1108/2000 before the learned Single Judge? 3. The Division Bench then went on to examine both the issues and observed that from the facts of the case it was apparent that the order dated 3.7.2000 dismissing Application Nos. 2005-2006/1998 had been made without notice to the applicants and without their knowledge and that an examination of the merits of the controversy was closely interlinked with the question of limitation, which necessitated a decision on merits as well. 4. The learned Counsel for the parties hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Judge by order dated 3.7.2000 without notice to the applicants i.e. the assignees. In this situation, the Division Bench was justified in holding that the order of the learned Single Judge was not sustainable. The learned Counsel for the appellant, has, however, urged that no particulars had been spelt out in the application justifying the condonation of a delay of 971 days. We are of the opinion, however, that the applicants have explained the delay and we accordingly endorse the observations of the Division Bench on this aspect. 5. As noted above, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the applications by order dated 08.12.2003 wholly on the ground of limitation. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench has not only condoned the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
