VENKAIAH U Vs. T KOTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the same suit. Hence, they were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The suit filed by the respondent was decreed ex parte on 22-3-1991. The defendants - revision petitioners have filed petitions under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dt. 22-3-1991. The learned trial Judge, by the orders under revision dt.19-6-1997, allowed the petitions filed by the petitioners, under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, on condition that the petitioners-defendants shall deposit half of the decretal amount together with costs into the Court on or before 3-7-1997. In the same order, the learned trial Judge has also stated that if the petitioners-defendants fail to deposit the said amount into the Court within the prescribed period, the petitions filed under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC stand dismissed. It appears that subsequently these applications were again posted before the trial Judge on 3-7-1997 though on 19-6-1997 the Court did not direct the office to call the case on 3-7-1997. On 3-7-1997,the learned trial Judge noticing that payment of money into the Court as directed in the order dt.19-6-1997 was not done by the petitioners-defendants, made an order dismissing the petitions filed under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. Hence, these two Civil Revision Petitions assailing the conditions imposed by the learned trial Judge in the order made on 19-6-1997.

(3.) Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent at the threshold contended that these C.R.Ps under Sec.115, C.P.C. are not maintainable, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in M/s.Gopal & Co. vs. M/s.K.Balarajaiah Siddiramulu. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, placing reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of Madras High Court in Parthasarathi vs. Chinnappayan & others, would maintain that the C.R.Ps are maintainable.