S MURALI KUMAR Vs. SELVAMANI & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the first respondent. In spite of service of notice, there was no representation for the second respondent and the second respondent is also called absent continuously.

(2.) This Civil Revision has been preferred, challenging the order, dated 04.09.2010 made in R. E. A. No. 146 of 2010 in R. E. A. No. 78 of 2010 in R. E. P. No. 319 of 2006 in O. S. No. 4 of 1999 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri.

(3.) The petitioner herein, who was arrayed as obstructor in R. E. A. No. 78 of 2010 filed the subsequent Execution Application in R. E. A. No. 146 of 2010, seeking an order for simultaneous trial of the suit in O. S. No. 35 of 2010 and the enquiry in R. E. A. No. 78 of 2010.