P PERUMAL Vs. MINOR KUMARESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant is the petitioner in both the cases. He has challenged the two separate orders dated 1.3.2002 in I.A.Nos.54 and 55 of 2001 in O.S.No.56 of 1996 refusing to condone the delay in filing applications under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. A caveat petition had been filed on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) Both the counsels were heard and orders were reserved. The present common order shall govern both the Civil Revision Petitions.

(3.) In O.S.No.56 of 1996 filed by the respondents, the present petitioner had entered appearance and filed written statement. However, subsequently, Mr.V.V. Ramanathan, the counsel engaged by the petitioner, had left practice. Subsequently, preliminary decree was passed ex-parte and thereafter final decree was also passed ex-parte. Two separate petitions were filed under Order Rule 13 C.P.C., one for setting aside the preliminary decree and the other for setting aside the exparte final decree. Both the applications were barred by time. I.A.No.54 of 2001 and I.A.No.55 of 2001 were filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the applications under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. The grounds taken in both the petitions are similar. It is stated that since Mr. Ramanathan, the previous Advocate engaged by the petitioner, had left practice, the petitioner remained in dark regarding the progress of the case and could not take steps. It is further stated that the petitioner was suffering from filariasis and could not attend the Court and could not instruct the Advocate to take steps.