DILIP MEHRA Vs. VISAKHA INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the orders in LA. No.2278 of 2001, LA. (SR) No.1321 of 2002 and LA. (SR) No.1322 of 2002 respectively. Since all the said applications arise out of O.S. No.19 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the 1st Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad the same are heard together and decided by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners in all these revision petitions are the defendants who suffered an ex parte decree. The plaintiff who is the 1st respondent in all the Revision Petitions filed the suit for recovery of Rs.8,73,165.26 ps. alleged to be due from the 1st defendant-Company. The 2nd defendant was the Managing Director of the 1st defendant-Company, whereas the defendants 3 and 4 are the Directors. The suit was decreed ex parte on 13-6-2000. The defendants 2 and 4 filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex parte decree along with another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. Similar applications were filed by the 1st defendant-Company. The trial Court by order dated 12-10-2001 dismissed the applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently dismissed the applications under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil. Procedure Code. Challenging the said orders C.R.P. Nos.4899/2001; 4900/2001 and 4901/2001 are filed in this Court. Having heard all the parties this Court by a common order dated 29-11-2001 allowed the Civil Revision Petitions and condoned the delay holding that the costs awarded by the trial Court in the ex parte decree, which were already deposited in pursuance of the interim orders granted pending the revision petitions, shall be treated as costs for condoning the delay and the respondent/plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the same. In pursuance thereof, the applications filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code were taken up by the trial Court. Both LA: No.2277 of 2001 filed by the 1st defendant-Company and I.A. No.2278/2001 filed by the defendnats 2 and 4 were allowed by the Court below by separate orders dated 14-2-2002 subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000.00 on or before 28-2-2002. However, the costs were not paid within the time granted and on 28-2-2002 the defendant No.1 filed LA. (SR) No.1322 of 2002 and the defendants 2 and 4 filed LA. (SR) No.1321 of 2002 under Section 148 of Civil Procedure Code seeking extension of time by one week for depositing the costs. The Court below rejected the said applications by identical orders dt.28-2-2002. The said order may be extracted hereunder:

(3.) Consequently, LA. No.2277 of 2001 and LA. No.2278/2001 were also dismissed for non-payment of costs. In the circumstances, C.R.P. No.1518 of 2002 was filed against the order rejecting LA. (SR) No.1321 of 2002, C.R.P. No.1456 of 2002 was filed aggrieved by rejection of LA. (SR) No.1322 of 2002, whereas C.R.P. No.1325 of 2002 has been filed against the order dated 28-2-2002 dismissing LA. No.2278 of 2001.