( 1 ) HAS referred the above revisions to a Division Bench on the ground that it was necessary that the, Bench should consider how far the decision in Manley Estatates Ltd. v. Benedek . affected the reasoning in balakrishna Ayyar v. Parvathammal. The facts are simple and may be briefly stated. The respondent obtained a decree ex parts for possession against the petitioner. On an application filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex parte decree, the Court made the following Order:" By consent, the ex parte decree will be set aside on condition of the petitioner depositing into Court the costs awarded by the decree as condition precedent by 2 P. M. on 14-7-1951. In default the petition will stand dismissed. "the amount was not deposited before 2 P. M. on 14-7-1951. The result was that the application stood dismissed on that date. Therefore, the petitioner filed two applications for extending the time for depositing the amount and for reviewing the order. The learned. Subordinate Judge relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Balakrishna Ayyar v. Parvathammal, dismissed the applications. When the Civil Revision Petitions came up b