THIRUGNANAM Vs. M KULASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd defendant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition against the dismissal of his I.ANo.108 of 1991 praying for restoration of I. ANo.735 of 1990 filed by him and was dismissed on 5.11.1990 since he did not pay the cost of Rs.100 which he was directed to pay, by order dated 10.10.1990, within the time stipulated (about 25 days). THE said I.ANo.735 of 1990 was to set aside the order dated 8.6.1990, setting him ex parte in the suit O.S.No.578 of 1988.

(2.) WHEN the civil revision petition came up before me I posed the question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the abovesaid I.ANo.108 of 1991 itself was maintainable since the order dated 5.11.1990 in I.ANo.735 of 1990 was not an ex parte order. Either the petitioner could have filed a petition for enlarging the time granted by the court below for the payment of the abovesaid sum of Rs.100 or filed an appeal or revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. But, the petitioner did not resort to either of the two remedies available. Instead, the abovesaid petition has been filed as if the order dated 5.11.1990 was an ex parte order.

(3.) ON those facts, the Orissa High Court no doubt initially held that the trial court erred in rejecting the petition dated 21.7. 1981 under Sec.148 read with Sec.151, C.P.C. filed by the said petitioner as not maintainable. This initial ruling of the Orissa High Court has no application to the present case, since in the present case, as already indicated, no petition was filed for enlargement of the time originally granted.