VICTOR BENJAMIN Vs. AROCKIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/defendant has filed this civil revision petition praying for a direction of this Court to be issued to the learned District Sessions Judge at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District to number the unnumbered C.M.A./08 in S.R.No. 7385 of 2008.

(2.) THE main grievance of the revision petitioner is that as against the order dated 5.11.2008 in I.A.No. 292 of 2006 in O.S.No. 140 of 2002, passed by the learned Sub Judge, Padmanabhapuram, an appeal has been preferred by the revision petitioner as an appellant and the same has not been taken on file and returned on 27.11.2008 with an endorsement "as to how the C.M.A. lies under Order 43, Rule 1 of CPC."

(3.) THE learned District Judge has granted one month's time to the revision petitioner for compliance of the said return. It appears that the revision petitioner has not answered the query of maintainability of civil miscellaneous appeal, but simply made an endorsement that "the same has been complied with and represented". Again, the office of the District Court has once again returned the civil miscellaneous appeal papers stating that already the civil miscellaneous appeal is returned and to state how the civil miscellaneous appeal lies before this Court under Order 43, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code granting fifteen days time. The revision petitioner instead of answering the query raised by the office of the District Court, has approached this Court straight away under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.