- (1.) This order will dispose of application filed by the defendant-appellants under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal preferred against the impugned Ex-parte judgment and decree dt. 13.5.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Ajmer in Regular Civil Suit No. 68/96 filed by the plaintiff-respondents for specific performance of agreement to sell dt. 16.7.93. It is an admitted fact that the appeal is delayed by 3541 days. It has been averred in the application that when they were served with notices for appearance issued by the Court below in Execution Case No. 41/2003, they engaged advocate Shri S.D. Sharma and asked him to make necessary inquiry about the case and thereafter it was informed by Mr. Sharma to them that an ex-parte decree dt. 13.5.1997 has been passed by the Court below in Suit No. 68/96 filed by the respondents for specific performance of agreement to sell dt. 16.7.93 and thereby they were for the first time made aware of the fact that such an ex-parte decree has been passed against them. It was further averred by them that they being illiterate ladies residing in villages and being unaware of legal provisions and Court procedures could not file the appeal in time and as soon as they were advised to file appeal, they without any delay has filed the same.
(2.) Reply to the application was filed by the respondents and apart from other facts it was averred by them that the appellants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the impugned judgment and decree dt. 13.5.97 in the Court below on 18.2.1998 as CMA No. 118/98 and the same was dismissed by the Court below vide order dt. 25.1.2002. It was further averred by the respondents that the appellants have falsely stated that they for the first time made aware of the impugned judgment and decree dt. 13.5.97 when they were served with notices issued by the Court below in Execution Case No. 41/2003.
(3.) Rejoinder to the reply was filed by the appellants stating therein that no application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was ever filed by them as they were not aware of the fact that an ex-parte decree against them has been passed in Civil Suit No. 68/1996 on 13.5.1997. It was also averred by them that they did not engage any advocate for filing the said application and the "Vakalatnama" allegedly filed on behalf of them by Advocate Shri S.K. Saksena do not contain many essential details and particulars as mentioned in the rejoinder. It was alleged by the appellants that advocate Shri S.K. Saksena in collusion with the respondents, who were having some blank papers with them signed by the appellants, has misused and abused the process of law.;