SRILASRI KUNDRAKUDI Vs. RAJAMURTHY ALIAS SOUNDARARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 6. 10. 2003 made in I. A. No. 161 of 2002 in O. S. No. 986 of 1987 by the Court of Additional District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.

(2.) TODAY, when the above civil revision petition has been taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an application filed by the other side praying to condone the delay of 351 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree had been ordered by the trial court to the prayers, testifying the validity of which the petitioners have come forward to file the above civil revision petition.

(3.) THIS Court is further given to understand that the suit is pending, even though some orders are said to be passed in execution of the exparte decree when the lower court itself has arrived at the conclusion to set aside the same, causing production of the said order, the petitioner seeking to allow the above revision is of no use since as adumbrated in the above two judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is the substantial justice that is the hallmark and not the implementation of the exparte decree prior to an ultimate decision arrived at regarding the revival of the suit on applications made by the other side, and therefore, there is no gain saying regarding the execution of the exparte decree and it is upto the trial court to decide as to the conclusions of such an execution and for rectification.