SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) The present challenge is directed against an order whereby the appellate court has affirmed an order of dismissal of an application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, consequent upon the dismissal of an accompanying application for condonation of delay.
(2.) It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the plaintiffs in the suit were two rustic and illiterate ladies, who had no knowledge about the law and as such ought to be given the benefit of the lenient principles governing such matters. It is argued that unless mala fides can be attributed to the petitioners, the norm is to allow such applications and restore the suit for being heard on merits. In this context, the petitioners cite a judgment reported at (2001) 6 SCC 176 (M.K. Prasad v. P. Arumugam) .
(3.) It was held in the said judgment that the failure of a litigant to adopt extra vigilance should not be made a ground for ousting him from the litigation with respect to the property which was, in that matter, concededly to be valuable. It was further held that for deciding the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, the court should have kept in mind the judgment impugned, the extent of the property involved and the stake of the party.;