B JANAKIRAMAIAH CHETTY Vs. A K PARTHASARATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the subject-matter, the relief sought, and the parties are same in both these civil revision petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In these two revision petitions, the oft-repeated controversy, i.e., when the Court passed an order in the absence of one of the parties to the proceedings, whether it has to be treated as an ex parte decree or a judgment on merits, in the light of the explanation to Order 17, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as inserted by Amendment Act 104 of 1976.

(3.) This issue is squarely covered by a judgment of the Apex Court in Prakash Chander Manchanda and another v, Smt. Janki Manchanda, AIR 1987 SC 42 and two judgments of this Court in B. Sheshagiri Rao v. Sri Ramalingeswara Swamivaru Devvasthanam, Nadigampadu, 1981 (1) ALT 80 and Eswaraiah v. S.A. Gaffoor and another, 1998 (4) ALD 222 = 1998 (4) ALT 234. However, as the Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued for a considerable length of time that the order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, in OS No. 117 of 1992, dated 23-6-1999, has to be treated as a judgment on merits, I am constrained to have a fresh look on the cases in the light of the arguments addressed before this Court.