M MADHU Vs. L MAHALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Animadverting upon the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris at Ootacamund in (i) I.A. No. 164 of 2012 in I.A. No. 295 of 2011 in O.S. No. 143 of 2010 dated 4.4.2012 and (ii) I.A. No. 295 of 2011 in O.S. No. 143 of 2010 dated 15.2.2012, these civil revision petitions are focussed. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the lower Court.

(2.) The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two revisions would run thus:

(3.) No written statement was filed till 7.1.2011 by the son, the revision petitioner herein, despite opportunities having been given by the Court to file such written statement on cost of Rs. 100/-. The suit summons was received by the revision petitioner on 13.9.2010. Because of the delay in filing the written statement, the Court set the defendant ex parte on 7.1.2011 and the decree was passed on 28.1.2011. Subsequently, I.A. No. 295 of 2011 was filed within the limitation period of thirty days to get the ex parte judgment and decree set aside. Counter was filed by the respondent herein. After hearing both sides, the lower Court allowed the application subject to the condition that a sum of Rs. 81,512/- should be deposited by the revision petitioner herein along with cost of Rs. 3,000/- as condition precedent for participating in the proceedings. Thereafter, it appears I.A. No. 164 of 2012 was filed for getting the time extended for complying with the said order and that was rejected. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid two orders, these two revisions have been filed.