JUDGMENT : T. RAVINDRAN, J. Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Order 41 Rule 9 of C.P.C. to set aside the order dated 22.11.2018 passed in C.M.P. No. 7128 of 2018 in S.A. No. 20519 of 2018 and consequentially, restore the C.M.P. No. 7128 of 2018 in S.A. No. 20519 of 2018. 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been laid by the petitioners to set aside the order dated 22.11.2018 passed in C.M.P. No. 7128 of 2018 in S.A. No. 20519 of 2018 and consequentially, restore the C.M.P. No. 7128 of 2018 in S.A. No. 20519 of 2018. 2. As could be seen from the case projected by the petitioners and the respondent, the suit in O.S. No. 4650 of 2015 has been laid by the respondent against the petitioners on the file of the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for the relief of declaration that the order of termination dated 28.07.2015 is illegal and for consequential reliefs. It is found that the abovesaid suit had been dismissed by the trial Court on 23.11.2015. Aggrieved over the same, the respondent has preferred the first appeal in A.S. No. 34 of 2016 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The abovesaid first appeal has been allowed. Aggrieved over the same, it is found that the petitioners had preferred the second appeal. However, as there occurred the delay of 118 days in preferring the abovesaid second appeal, the petitioners have come forward with the petition in CMP No. 7128 of 2018 seeking to condone the abovesaid delay for the reasons stated by them. 3. It is found that the abovesaid petition laid by the petitioners for the condonation of the delay, after hearing both sides, this Court has allowed the petition on condition that the petitioners should pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- as costs to the counsel appearing for the respondent within a week from the date of the said order. However, according to the petitioners, their erstwhile counsel had not taken steps to comply with the abovesaid conditional order. Further, according to them, on coming to know of the same, their department had nominated the case to the present counsel vide letter dated 23.10.2018. However, according to the petitioners, their erstwhile counsel had not taken steps to comply with the abovesaid conditional order. Further, according to them, on coming to know of the same, their department had nominated the case to the present counsel vide letter dated 23.10.2018. As the papers were not handed-over by the erstwhile to the present counsel, they were unable to take appropriate steps in the matter and according to them, in the meanwhile, the abovesaid petition laid by them for the condonation of the delay in C.M.P. No. 7128 of 2018 had come to be dismissed for default by this Court on 22.11.2018 due to non compliance of the conditional order and consequentially, the second appeal filed by them in S.A. No. 20519 of 2018 had also come to be rejected. According to the petitioners, as they are not aware of the order of the dismissal of their petition laid for the condonation of the delay and only after the respondent had issued the legal notice informing the same and also about the rejection of the second appeal, they came to know about the dismissal and hence, according to them, they had necessitated to lay the present petition for the restoration of the abovesaid petition and according to the petitioners, if the abovesaid petition is not restored on file, they would put to irreparable loss and hardship and hence, prayed for appropriate orders. 4. The respondent has filed a counter in the matter strongly refuting the reasons alleged by the petitioners for restoration of their application dismissed for default in C.M.P. No. 7128 of 2018 and the respondent, after adverting to the matter, put forth the case that the petitioners had deliberately failed to comply with the conditional order passed by this Court in C.M.P. No. 7128 of 2018 and no valid reason has been projected by them for the non compliance of the same and the petitioners cannot be allowed to put the blame on the erstwhile counsel for not complying with the conditional order and having failed to comply with the order, the petitioners should have only preferred a petition within the stipulated time under Section 148 C.P.C. seeking for extension of time to comply with the conditional order. However, no such petition has been preferred by them and inasmuch as the petitioners had failed to comply with the conditional order, this Court had dismissed their application on account of the same on 22.11.2018 and the petitioners had not appeared in the matter, despite the listing of the case before the Court and further, according to him, if at all the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of dismissal, their remedy is only to file S.L.P. before the Supreme Court, challenging the order and the present petition is not legally maintainable and the petitioners have falsely pleaded that they had no knowledge about the order of the dismissal and their counsel and the petitioners have deliberately failed to follow up the matter maliciously in order to harass the respondent and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The petition laid by the petitioners to condone the delay of 118 days in filing the S.A. No. 20519 of 2018 has come to be allowed by this Court on condition that the petitioners should pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the counsel appearing for the respondent within a week from the date of the said order. Now, according to the petitioners, their erstwhile counsel had not taken appropriate steps to comply with the conditional order and due to the same, they were unable to adhere to the said order. Further, it is put forth that consequentially, they had changed the counsel and entrusted the matter to the present counsel and further, according to them, due to the non-entrustment of the papers to the present counsel by the erstwhile counsel, some delay had occurred in taking further steps to set aside the order of the dismissal. However, according to the respondent, despite having knowledge about the conditional order, both the petitioners and their counsel had deliberately failed to comply with the same and therefore, according to him, the petition is not entitled for acceptance and further, according to him, the only remedy available to the petitioners is to prefer the SLP against the impugned order. 6. However, according to the respondent, despite having knowledge about the conditional order, both the petitioners and their counsel had deliberately failed to comply with the same and therefore, according to him, the petition is not entitled for acceptance and further, according to him, the only remedy available to the petitioners is to prefer the SLP against the impugned order. 6. From the order passed by this Court dated 22.11.2018 in C.M.P. No. 7128 of 2018, it is found that the petition laid by the petitioners in C.M.P. No. 7128 of 2018 has come to be dismissed only due to the non compliance of the conditional order and also on the fact that there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners on the relevant hearing date, accordingly, it is seen that the impugned order is only an order dismissing the petition preferred by the petitioners for default and not on merits. Now, the petitioners had put forth the reasons, particularly, blaming their erstwhile counsel for the non compliance of the conditional order passed by this Court and the same necessitated on their part to change the erstwhile counsel and according to them, the papers had been entrusted to the present counsel for further action. However, the abovesaid cause projected by the petitioners has been repudiated by the respondent. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the petition laid by the petitioners for the condonation of the delay had come to be entertained by this Court earlier on condition and the same had come to be subsequently dismissed for the non compliance of the same and considering the issues involved in the matter in toto, in my considered opinion, in the interest of justice, the petitioners should be permitted to prosecute their petition in the manner known to law and not to be dismissed for default as above pointed out. The interest of justice requires the abovesaid approach and in such view of the matter, for serving the cause of justice, in my considered opinion, the petitioners should be given an opportunity to prosecute their application as per law and by way of the same, no serious prejudice is found to be caused to the respondent. 7. The interest of justice requires the abovesaid approach and in such view of the matter, for serving the cause of justice, in my considered opinion, the petitioners should be given an opportunity to prosecute their application as per law and by way of the same, no serious prejudice is found to be caused to the respondent. 7. The respondent's counsel, in support of his contention that the petition laid by the petitioners is not legally sustainable, placed reliance upon the decision reported in Anand Parkash vs. Bharat Bhushan Rai and Another, AIR 1981 P&H 369. The principles of law outlined in the abovesaid decision are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the case at hand. 8. For the reasons aforestated, the order of dismissal dated 22.11.2018 passed in C.M.P. No. 7128 of 2018 is set aside and accordingly, the petition is allowed.