K. MUJEEB REHMAN Vs. PALLIPATTU THOMBAN RIYAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants 5 and 6 in O.S.No. 28 of 2012, on the file of Additional District Judge, Dindigul, have filed the above civil revision petition to set aside the fair and final orders passed in I.A.Nos. 450 to 453/2013 in I.A.Nos. 14 to 17/2013 and I.A.No. 311 of 2013 in O.S.No. 28 of 2012.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed applications I.A.Nos. 14 to 17 of 2013 seeking for interim injunction, for attachment before judgment and to appoint an advocate commissioner. In the said applications, since the revision petitioners remained absent, and failed to file their counter, in those applications an ex -parte order was passed on 08.04.2013. Thereafter, the revision petitioners filed I.A.Nos. 450 to 453 of 2013 to set aside the exparte order, which applications were dismissed by the Trial Court. The revision petitioners have satisfactorily explained the reasons for non appearance on 08.04.2013 before the Trial Court. While so, the Trial Court should have set aside the exparte order passed in those applications and allow the revision petitioners to contest the applications on merits. But, the Trial Court had erroneously dismissed the applications and refused to set aside the exparte orders.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submitted that the revision petitioners agreed to withdraw C.R.P.(MD).No. 230 of 2014. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in C.R.P.(MD).No. 230 of 2014, seeks time to get instruction to withdraw the C.R.P.(MD).No. 230 of 2014, which was filed as against the order passed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.