(1.) THE revision petition is not maintainable under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. THE petitioner suffered an ex parte decree, passed by the District Munsif, Uthamapalayam on 15.2.1990 in O.S.No. 1317 of 1989. THE petitioner filed LA.No. 104 of 1990 to set aside the said decree. An order was passed in that application on 2.9.1991, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.100 by way of costs to the respondent, on or before 30.8.1991, as condition. It was made clear that the petition would stand dismissed if the cost was not paid. On. 2-9-1991, the court passed an order dismissing the petition, recording the fact that the cost was not paid.
(2.) THE petitioner filed I.A.No. 289 of 1992 for setting aside that order and restore the I.A.No. 104 of 1990. That was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that remedy of the petitioner was only to file an appeal. That order was challenged by the petitioner in this Court, in C.R.P.No. 1282 of 1993, and detailed arguments were advanced before the learned Judge. THE revision petition was dismissed on 8.10.1993. THE learned Judge has pointed out that the petitioner did not even given any reason for non-payment of costs within the time granted by the court below. THE learned Judge has referred to the various rulings cited on behalf of the petitioner and distinguished the same. THE learned Judge has found that there was no merit in the revision petition and dismissed the same. THErefore, when the execution proceedings are going on, the petitioner has chosen to file this revision petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the correctness of the decree dated 15.2.1990, passed in the suit.
(3.) AT the outset, it must be pointed out that the grounds of revision are not in proper form at all. Every ground is argumentative and narrative in nature. The fundamental rule relating to memorandum of grounds that it should be concise and should not be argumentative or narrative has been completely ignored.