M K RAGHAVAN Vs. M K SARATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE same petitioner in all these revision petitions has come to this court after committing following several defaults. 1. He was the defendant in O.S.No.9073 on the file of the 4th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras and he allowed himself to be set ex parte. 2. THEn he allowed the final decree to be passed on the said suit for accounting ex parte against him on 24.2.1990. 3. THEn, when he filed I.A.Nos.6532 and 6533 of 1990 (to set aside the said exparte disposals) he allowed them to be dismissed for default in about September, 1990. 4. THEre was delay of 404 days on his part in filing petitions for restoration of the above said I.As. 5. THEn when he filed I.A.Nos.20542 and 20543 of 1991 for condoning the said delay and when the court subsequently passed the conditional order dated 13.4.1993, allowing the said I.As. on condition of his paying Rs.400 in each of the petitions on or before 26.4.1993, he failed to fulfil the said condition. 6. THEn when, those I.As. were taken up on 27.4.1993 he also failed to appear before court and allowed those I.As. to be dismissed on two grounds, viz., (1) for non-payment of the above said Rs.400 in each of the cases; and (2) for his absence on 27.4.1993 when the I.As. were taken up. 2 Now, against the abovesaid order dated 27.4.1993 in I.A.Nos.20542 and 20543 of 1991, four different applications have been filed whose dismissal by order dated 25.1.1994 have resulted in the present civil revision petitions. Those applications are:(1) I.A.No.7686 of 1993 to restore I.A.No.20542 of 1991, (2) I.A.No.7688 of 1993 under Sec.148, C.P.C. to extend the abovesaid time for payment of the abovesaid Rs.400 granted in I.A.No.20542 of 1991, (3) I.A.No.7687 of 1993 to restore I.A.No.20543 of 1991, and (4) I.ANo.7689 of 1993 under Sec.148, C.P.C. for extending the abovesaid time for payment of the abovesaid Rs.400, granted in I.A.No.20543 of 1991.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner stated that prior to the passing of the abovesaid order dated 13.4.1993, orders were reserved in the abovesaid I.A.Nos.20542 and 20543 of 1991 on 15.3.1993.

(3.) BUT, it is well known that when order is reserved in a petition and subsequently order is pronounced, the court causes a notice to be put up in the notice board of the court to the effect that the order would be pronounced on a particular date. It is for the counsel to look up the said notice board and be present when the order is actually pronounced on the date mentioned in the notice board. While so, there is absolutely no averment in the abovesaid supporting affidavits regarding the above aspect. There is also no affidavit by the counsel in this regard. It is also not averred whether the learned counsel for the petitioner was present in the court, or not, when the order was pronounced on 13.4.1993. Even if the counsel was not present on 13.4.1993 when the order was pronounced, he could have also subsequently verified, whether order has been pronounced in the abovesaid I.A.Nos.20542 and 20543 of 1991 by looking into the court diary. Even regarding this, there is no affidavit by the counsel. Assuming that this job is done by the clerk of the counsel there is no averment in the supporting affidavit as to why the said clerk did not verify the said diary to find out whether the order has been passed or not. It is only stated in the affidavit that the said counsel's clerk was only asking the court clerks in this regard. It is not stated as to why he did not look into the court diary in this regard. This is one of the reasons given by the court below passing the abovesaid impugned orders and I am unable to see any error by the court below in giving the abovesaid reason for the abovesaid dismissal orders.