( 1 ) THE revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit O. S. No. 3608 of 1998. The respondent herein is the plaintiff, who laid the said suit for recovery of an amount of rs. 59,090. 25 ps. The suit was filed invoking summary jurisdiction under Order 37 of the civil Procedure Code (for short the Code ). The basis for the suit claim was that the plaintiff orally agreed to carry out the construction work at the defendant s house on labour contract basis. As per the terms of the contract, the defendant should supply the material for construction and the plaintiff should engage the labourers for such construction work. Accordingly, the plaintiff carried out the construction work and prepared a statement of account for the work done. As per the statement arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant agreed to pay a sum of rs. 1,87,589. 25 ps. and further agreed to pay 10% more of the said amount working out to Rs. 18,758. 00. After deducting the amounts paid by the defendant, still he was due to the tune of Rs. 59,090. 25 ps. for which ultimately the plaintiff laid the suit.

( 2 ) PURSUANT to the summons served upon him, the defendant appeared before the Court through his Counsel. Later, it appears that he filed a petition under Order 37 Rule 3 (1) of the Code seeking permission to defend the case in SR. Nos. 3661 and 3662 of 1998 on 03-09-1998. He was waiting for the requisite notice to be issued by the plaintiff under the mandatory provisions of order 37 Rule 3 (3) of the Code. He did not know the proceedings of the Court till 05-10-1998. In the meanwhile, the suit was decreed ex parte. Therefore, he filed LA. No. 2047 of 1998 for condoning the delay of 35 days occurred in the process of filing the concomitant petition in I. A. No. 839 of 1998 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree under Order 37 Rule 7 of the Code. Since the petition filed by him seeking leave to defend in SR Nos. 3661 and 3662 of 1998 had been returned on some office objection and as it had not been re-presented in time, he filed LA. No. 838 of 1998 seeking enlargement of time under Section 148 of the Code and to condone the delay of 74 days in re-presenting the petition SR nos. 3661 and 3662 of 1998.

( 3 ) THE respondent plaintiff filed his counter in I. A. No. 2047 of 1998 resisting the application pleading, inter alia, that the affidavit filed in support of the petition was not given by the party himself and that he filed the application contrary to the provisions of Order 37 Rule 3 (1) of the code and that there was no explanation for the delay.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing both sides, the Court below dismissed the petition in I. A. No. 2047 of 1998 on the premise that the person, who had given the affidavit, was not the party and each day s delay was not explained. Consequent upon the Orders passed in i. A. No. 2047 of 1998, the Court below dismissed the other two petitions. Therefore, the petitioner-defendant filed c. R. P. No. 918 of 2000 against the Orders passed in LA. No. 2047 of ,1998; C. R. P. No. 1161 of 2000 against the Orders passed in LA. No. 828 of 1998; and C. R. P. No. 1290 of 2000 against the Orders passed in LA. No. 839 of 1998.

( 5 ) CERTAIN facts, which are not contentious, may be set forth at the outset for brevity and better understanding of the matter. The suit summons was served upon the defendant-revision petitioner on 27-08-1998. The defendant put in his appearance through a Counsel on 03-09-1998. On the same day, he filed the petition seeking leave to defend in S. R. Nos. 3661 and 3662 of 1998. That petition was returned with an office objection on 22-09-1998. The suit was decreed ex parte on 05-10-1998. He filed the petition seeking to set aside the ex parte decree on 10-12-1998.

( 6 ) THE objections taken by the Office while returning the petition and the vakalath were two-fold, namely, (1) as to how the petition is maintainable; and (2) memo of appearance is not filed. Before filing that appli