S MUTHALIBU Vs. A GOVINDASWAMY MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No.6713 of 1994 on the file of the learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, laid for a decree and judgment, directing the revision petitioner/2nd defendant and the first defendant in the suit to pay a sum of Rs.23,000/- with interest thereon at 18% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation.

(2.) Even though notice was served on the revision petitioner/second defendant, directing him to appear before the learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai on 21.10.1994, the matter was adjourned to 24.2.1995, on which date, the revision petitioner was informed that all the cases pending before the learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, were transferred to various Courts. Therefore, even before he could verify the `A Diary to appear before the concerned Court, viz., the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the case was called and the revision petitioner was set ex parte. Hence, he filed an application to set aside the order dated 24.2.1995, setting the revision petitioner ex parte; but the same was confirmed by order dated 25.4.1996 in C.R.P.No.671 of 1995.

(3.) Thereafter, an ex parte decree was passed against the revision petitioner on 28.8.1996, which was also confirmed by order dated 30.4.2001 made in C.M.A.No.58 of 1999 on the file of the learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, on the ground that the order, setting the revision petitioner/2nd defendant ex parte on 24.2.1995 had already been confirmed by an order dated 25.4.1996. But, admittedly, the ex parte decree made against the first defendant under Order IX Rule 13 on 28.8.1996 was set aside by order dated 29.9.1997 in I.A.No.1675 of 1997. Hence, the above revision.