MARI FLORA Vs. K K NANJAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Revisions have been preferred under Section 115 of CPC against the orders, dated 5.3.2008, made in E.A.No,464 & 465 of 2007, respectively, in E.P.No,40 of 1992 in O.S.No.170 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam.)THESE Revisions have been preferred by the petitioner/decree holder against the dismissal of E.A.No,464 of 2007 seeking for condonation of delay of 190 days in filing the application to restore the execution petition and also against the dismissal of E.A.No,465 of 2007 filed to restore E.P.40 of 1992 to the file, respectively.

(2.) HEARD Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.N.Manoharan learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by both sides. Both the revisions have been filed by the petitioner against the dismissal orders passed by the lower Court in the application filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of 190 days in filing the application to restore the E.P.40 of 1992 filed by the petitioner and the application to restore the E.P.40 of 1992 to the file. The lower Court was not convinced with the reasons assigned by the petitioner for condoning the delay. However, it did not go into the question of maintainability of the application seeking for condonation of delay of 190 days in filing the application to restore EP.40 of 199.