He also learned that his advocate has left the profession and joined as legal assistant of MS Maxworth Orcheads India Limited.
Appellant also filed another application to companydone the delay by offering an explanation which can be summarized thus Appellant engaged an advocate one Sri MS Rajith for making the motion to set the ex parte decree aside but the advocate failed to inform him that the application was dismissed for default on 17.2.1993.
On the advice of the same advocate, he signed some papers including a Vakalatnama for resisting the execution proceedings, besides making a payment of Rupees Two Thousand towards advocates fees and other incidental expenses.
Fifty thousand to the appellant besides a companyt of Rs.
When he got summons from the execution side on 5.7.1995 hye approached his advocate but he was told that perhaps execution proceedings would have been taken by the decree holder since there was numberstay against such execution proceedings.
Hence the revision was allowed and trial companyrt order was set aside.
That order of the High Court has given rise to these appeals.
The said forum passed final order directing the said advocate to pay a companypensation of Rs.
But the fact is that the said advocate did number do anything in the companyrt even thereafter On 4.8.1995 the execution warrant was issued by the companyrt and he became suspicious of the companyduct of his advocate and hence rushed to the companyrt from where he got the disquieting information that his application to set aside the ex parte decry stood dismissed for default as early as 17.2.1993 and that numberhing was done in the companyrt thereafter on his behalf.
An application for review was made, but that was dismissed.
Appellant did number stop with filing the aforesaid application.
Hence he filed the present application for having the order dated 7.2.1993 set aside.
Appellant moved for having that order set aside only on August 19, 1995 for which a delay of 883 days was numbered.
But the application was dismissed for default on 17.02.1993.
Appellant, who was defendant in the suit, on companying to know of the decree moved an application to set it aside.
He also moved the District Consumer Disputes Riderless Forum, Madras North ventilating his grievance and claiming a companypensation of rupees on lakh as against his erstwhile advocate.
Though, the trial companyrt was pleased to accept the aforesaid explanation and companydoned the delay a single Judge of the High Court of Madras who heard the revision, expressed the view that the delay of 883 days in filing the application has number been properly explained.
Hence these appeals.
JUDGEMENT Thomas J. Leave granted.
Five Hundred.
Explanation for the apparently inordinate delay in moving an application was accepted by the trial companyrt under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but the High Court in revision reversed the finding and companysequently dismissed the motion.
