K M PALANISAMY Vs. P SENGOTTAIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED over the fair and decreetal order of the subordinate Judge's Court at Bhavani dated 9. 4. 2007 in I. A. No. 45 of 2007 in o. S. No. 84 of 2005, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is the defendant in O. S. No. 84 of 2005 pending on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, filed by the respondent herein. The petitioner has filed an Application I. A. No. 85 of 2007 under Order 9, Rule 7, C. P. C. to set aside the ex parte order dated 22. 1. 2007 and decide the Suit on merits. It was contested by the respondent by filing a counter affidavit.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that it was only the first occasion on which the petitioner was set ex parte and within ten days there from he sought for setting aside the ex parte order, that the order directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 50 ,000 /- is very harsh and draconian. THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that there is no power to impose conditions at the stage of deciding an Application under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and he has also pressed into service judgments in support of his contention which are as follows: 1. G. L. Vijain v. K. Shankar, 2007 (1) TNLJ 619 (Civil) (SC) 2. Kumud Lata Das v. Indu Prasad, 1996 (11) SCC 195: AIR 1997 SC 34 (Three Hon'ble Judges) 3. 1994 (1) ALT 410 4. AIR 1987 Cal.197 (Division Bench) 5. Vijay Kumar Madan and others v. R. N. Gupta Technical education Society and others, 2002 (3) CTC 359: 2002 (5) SCC 30: AIR 2002 SC 2082