VAJRAVELU MUDALIAR Vs. A GURUSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the District Judge, North Arcot at Vellore in C.R.P.No.8 of 1988.

(2.) THE respondent filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1275/- due on an oral lease entered into by the petitioner on 18.2.1972. THE petitioner raised several contentions. He pleaded that he had paid a sum of Rs.1275/- even at the common cement of the lease before tapping toddy from the trees which were leased to him. He also raised a plea that the contract stood revoked by the con duct of the plaintiff and the latter was not entitled to recover any money from the petitioner here. THE trial court framed five issues and after con side ring the evidence on record granted the decree in favour of the respondent over ruling the contentions of the petitioner herein.

(3.) NO useful purpose would be served by my setting aside the order of the District Judge and directing the party to present a revision petition in this Court against the decree and judgment of the trial court. That will consume more time and lead to an application for condonation of delay which will have to be considered by this Court.