N RAMANATHAN Vs. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above civil revision petitions have been filed by one and the same parties, viz., the 1 1th and 12 defendants in the suit, as against the sole plaintiff and these defendants No.1 1 and 12 have filed two applications before the lower court the first one in I.A.No.641 of 1998 in the pending suit in O.S.No.104 of 1995 and the second one in I.A.No.655 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai.

(2.) I.A.No.641 of 1998 has been filed by defendants No.1 1 and 12 under Order 9, Rule 7, C.P.C. seeking to set aside the exparte order dated 9.9.1997 and the other I-A.No.655 of 1998 has been filed under Section 151, C.P.C. seeking to appoint some other advocate commissioner to inspect the suit property and to file a report with plan, in the place of the advocate commissioner already appointed by the court. The lower court has passed individual orders in both those applications and since both the applications have been filed by one and the same parties to the suit against the same plaintiff and since being forming part of the same suit, both the above civil revision petitions are heard together and this common order is passed.

(3.) ON the above general honest thought, the lower court should have allowed the appeal on heavy costs, instead of denying the opportunity for the petitioners to defend the case, wherein their valuable rights are involved. Moreover, the denial of such opportunity just for the simple reason that such petitioners are slack in their appearance, especially in realisation of their fault when they come forward to continue the proceedings, they must be given opportunity to be heard in .the suit, thus giving effect to the principles of natural justice. Even though they were at a stage, set ex parte in the pending suit, the only way to punish such parties is to saddle them with heavy costs, but not with denial of opportunity to contest the very suit.