K BALU Vs. K KARMEGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING failed in both the courts below, the defendant has preferred this civil revision petition against the concurrent order of the lower appellate court confirming the dismissal of his I.A. No.5116 of 1995 praying for setting aside the ex parte money decree dated 11.9.1992 in O.S. No.9875 of 1990 passed in favour of the respondent- plaintiff who is none other than the brother of the defendant.

(2.) FROM the impugned order of the lower appellate court in C.M.A. No.157 of 1995, it is found as follows:

(3.) BUT in my considered view, there is no case at all for interference by this. Court under Sec. 115, C.P.C. for the following reasons: