S. ARUL DHAS Vs. F. HUBERT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 02 August, 2012 in E.A. No. 50 of 2011 in E.P. No. 150 of 2006 in O.S. No. 349 of 2004, dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order is challenged in C.R.P. (NPD)(MD)No. 2497 of 2012.

(2.) The order dated 21 December, 2012 in I.A. No. 172 of 2011 in O.S. No. 349 of 2004, dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree is challenged in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No. 262 of 2013.

(3.) The first respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 349 of 2004 against the petitioner and the second respondent, praying for a decree of specific performance on the strength of the agreement dated 03 April, 1998. The petitioner failed to appear before the Trial Court and the same resulted in passing an ex parte decree. The first respondent filed Execution Petition in E.P. No. 150 of 2006, to execute the decree dated 06 February, 2003 in O.S. No. 22 of 2000, which was re-numbered as O.S. No. 349 of 2004. The Trial Court executed the decree. The petitioner, thereafter, filed application in E.A. No. 50 of 2011 to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order. The petitioner filed another application in I.A. No. 172 of 2011 to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree passed in O.S. No. 349 of 2004. The Trial Court dismissed both the applications on the ground that the decree has already been executed and in case it is set aside, at this point of time, the first respondent would be put to great loss. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with the Civil Revision Petitions.