A review can only be allowed on specific grounds, such as discovery of new evidence or mistake apparent on the face of the record. Misquoting the provision in the petition does not entitle the petitioner to the relief sought for.

(PRAYER: Revision filed against the order-dated 23.08.1996, made in I.A.No.1611/1994 in O.S.No.445/1991 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Ramanathapuram.)

This revision is directed against the order of the Principal District Munsif, Ramanathapuram passed in I.A.No.1611/1994 in O.S.No.445/1991, dated 23.08.1996, dismissing the Petition filed under Or.47 R.1 CPC and Section 151 CPC declining to review the earlier order passed in I.A.No.1353/1994. Defendant is the Revision Petitioner.

2. Revision Petitioner/Defendant is said to have borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the Respondent/Plaintiff on 18.10.1988, executing a Promissory Note. On 21.11.1988, a sum of Rs.1,000/- was paid making an endorsement. Case of the Plaintiff is that inspite of repeated demands and issuance of notice on 04.10.1991, the Defendant has not paid the amount. Hence the suit O.S.No.445/1995 was filed, claiming Rs.14,310/-, with subsequent interest.

3. The Defendant resisted the suit inter-alia contending that the Promissory Note is a forged one. According to the Defendant, there was business dealings between him and one Munusamy of Keezhakarai, relative of the Plaintiff and that difference of opinion arose between the Defendant and the said Munusamy and the suit has been filed at the instance of the said Munusamy, with a view to cause hardship and inconvenience to the Defendant. In the Written Statement, the Defendant has denied his signature in the Promissory Note and also the alleged endorsement. The Defendant has further submitted that there was no need or occasion for him to borrow money.

4. When the suit was posted for trial, the Defendant has not appeared. Hence the suit was decreed exparte on 16.08.1994. I.A.No.1353/1994 was filed to set aside the exparte decree. The said application was ordered on 16.09.1994, directing the Revision Petitioner/Defendant to pay a cost of Rs.300/- to the Respondent/Plaintiff on or before 26.09.1994. Since the cost was not paid on or before 26.09.1994, I.A.No.1353/1994 was dismissed.

5. I.A.No.1611/1994:-

After the dismissal of the application in I.A.No.1353/1994, the Defendant has filed this application under Or.47, R.1 CPC, read with Section 151 CPC to review the earlier order passed in I.A.No.1353/1994. According to the Defendant, on account of his ill-health, he could not again meet his counsel and that he has sent the money through his brother-in-law – Rangan and that the said Rangan was not able to locate the counsel's house and therefore, the cost could not be paid before 26.09.1994 and that the non-payment of cost was not wilful and hence sought for review of the earlier order.

6. The trial Court dismissed the Petition finding that the Defendant had known the order passed on 16.09.1994 and that no reasonable explanation is forthcoming for the non-payment of cost before 26.09.1994. The reason stated by the Defendant for non-payment of the cost before 26.09.1994 was not acceptable to the trial Court.

7. Aggrieved over the dismissal of I.A.No.1611/2004, the Defendant has preferred this revision. It is contended that under Section 148 CPC, the Court can extend the time for payment of cost. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the Court below erred in not taking note of the substantial defence put-forth by the Defendant and the explanation offered by him for not paying the cost before 26.09.1994. Submitting that misquoting of the provision would not be a ground for disallowing the application, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Defendant has relied upon 2000 III CTC 228 [Pakkiammal Vs. Anaiappan].

8. At the time when the revision was filed, only Notice of Motion was ordered. The Respondent has not been served. Since the revision is of the year 1997 and that Respondent has not been served, arguments in the main revision itself was heard.

9. To set aside the exparte decree dated 16.08.1994, I.A.No.1353/1994 was filed. The same was ordered on 16.09.1994, directin