In both these revisions, the petitioner questioned the correctness of the order passed by the lower appellate Judge in C.R.P.No.13 of 2005 and the trial Judge in C.R.P.No.14 of 2005 condoning the delay of 165 days in former case and 972 days in the latter case, in seeking to set aside the ex parte order. However, in C.R.P.No. 13 of 2005 the trial Judge, non-suited the respondent for condoning the delay of 165 days on the ground that he was not satisfied with the reasons stated for condoning the delay to set aside the ex-parte decree. However, the respondent herein took the matter on appeal in C.M.A. 1 of 2004 before the Subordinate Judge, who reversed the order on the ground that the respondent herein has to be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits. That order is put in issue before this Court on the ground that an appeal against the order dismissing the application to condone the delay is not maintainable before the Subordinate Judge, if at all only a revision would lie before this Court. However, on merits also it was contended that the learned lower appellate Judge has misdirected himself in accepting the reason for the delay.

2. In respect of C.R.P.No.