The petitioner in these revision petitions is the plaintiff in the suit O. S. No. 487 of 1966 on the file of the Munsiff's Court Kasaragod. The suit is one for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties from the defendant alleging that there has been trespass by him. The suit, after having undergone several adjournments was posted to 28-7-1967 as a last chance. On 28-7-1967 the learned Munsiff happened to be on leave. The suit was therefore reposted to 14-8-1967. On 14-8-1967 again the defendant was not ready and as a very very last chance the suit was posted to 30-8-1967. On 30-8-1967 the defendant was not present in court and his counsel reported no instructions. The result was, the suit was decreed as prayed for on 30-8-1967.

2. On 4-9-1967 the defendant filed R. I. A. 1983/67 under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him on 30-8-1967. The learned Munsiff in and by his order dated 30-9-1970 dismissed the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsiff dated 30-9-1970 the defendant filed C. M. A. No. 35 of 1970 on the file of the Subordinate Judge Kasaragod. On 29-6-1971 the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order which reads as follows : -

"So this petition will be allowed on payment of costs Rs. 30/- irrespective of the result of the suit to be paid within seven days from this date, failing which this appeal will stand dismissed with costs. If the costs is paid within time, the appeal and R. I. A. No. 1983/67 will stand allowed and the suit will be restored to file and the respondent will be entitled to the costs of this appeal. Call on 8-7-1971."

On 8-7-1971, below the order dated 29-6-1971, the following judgment is seen to have been passed :

"This C. M. A. coming again on this day before me to record the payment of the costs ordered if made the Court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT :

Costs not paid."

3. In the meanwhile on 7-7-1971 the defendant filed I. A. No. 141/ 71 under Sections 148, 149 and 151, C. P. C., praying that the Court be pleased to receive the costs ordered by the Sub-Court after excusing the delay and to enlarge the time granted originally for payment. This petition was disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge on 23-11-1971. The operative portion of the order on I. A. No. 141/71 dated 23-11-1971 reads as follows :

"In the result, the petition is allowed. Considering the peculiar features of the case, it is directed that both parties will bear their costs in this proceeding. In modification of the observation made in the C. M. A. dated 8-7-1971 that "Costs not paid" which has resulted in the dismissal of the C. M. A., it is ordered that the C. M. A. will stand allowed on payment or deposit of Rupees 30/- as costs ordered on 29-6-1971 by 25-11-1971. Call on 26-11-1971." The costs ordered was not deposited on or before 25-11-1971. On 26-11-1971 the defendant filed I. A. No. 246/71 for enlarging the time by one day for paying the costs ordered. On 27-11-1971 the court passed orders allowing I. A. 246/71 as a result of which an order was passed allowing I. A. 141/71 and an order was also passed allowing C. M. A. 35/70, all on 27-11-1971, C. R. P. No. 1375/71 is directed against the order in I. A. No. 246/71 dated 27-11-1971; C. R. P. No. 274/72 is directed against the order in I. A. 141/71 dated 27-11-1971 and C. R. P. No. 276/72 is directed against the judgment in C. M. A. No. 35/70 dated 27-11-1971.

4. As these revision petitions arise from one and the same matter, they were heard together. Sri V.K. Venkatakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has put forward various contentions challenging the validity of the orders and judgment from which these revisions have arisen. The first contention of the learned counsel is that inasmuch as the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated 29-6-1971 in C. M. A. 35/70 is a conditional order on the failure