L C SAPTHARISHI Vs. E D BALASUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT in O.S.1262 of 1991 on the file of IV Assistant City Civil Court, Madras is the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) AN ex parte decree was passed against petitioner and to have the same set aside, petitioner moved I.A. 3919 of 1996. When that application was dismissed for default I.A. 19563 of 1996 in I.A.3919 of 1996 was filed to have the same restored. That application was dismissed as not maintainable, against which C.R.P.1893 of 1999 was filed.

(3.) LOWER Court was too technical in dismissing the application as not maintainable. In certain urgent matters, if parties could not be present, counsel got power to move Court and Vakalat authorises him to do so. Court is only concerned about the administration of justice and such technicalities should not stand in the way of considering the same. What transpired before the Court is not the matter in dispute. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents before the lower Court, he is not disputing the statement made in the affidavit. He only gave history of the litigation. Under these circumstances, I feel that the impugned order must be sent aside and the lower Court must be directed to consider I.A. 3919 of 1996 on its merits.