THOPPE.BALUSAMY IYER Vs. THOPPE B.RAJARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the sides. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of these two Civil Revision Petitions would run thus:

(2.) Along with the suit, they filed I.A. No. 63 of 2009 under Section 92 of C.P.C., and that was also pending along with the suit in O.S. No. 91 of 2004. While so, the Advocate who appeared for the plaintiffs before the Lower Court made an endorsement as though he was not pressing the I.A. as well as the suit. Whereupon, the Court dismissed the I.A. No. 63 of 2009, but it did not pass any order in the suit. In the mean while, the party filed two applications for withdrawing the endorsement to with "not pressed" made in the I.A. as well as in the O.S. However, subsequently, the Judge (Successor in Office) heard both the sides and dismissed those applications on the ground that he being a successor cannot set aside the order of his predecessor. After dismissing both the applications, subsequently, as a sequela, he dismissed the suit itself. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions are focussed.

(3.) At this juncture, it is worthwhile to mention that the respondents 5 and 6 could not be served despite steps taken by the petitioners.