ORDER: Both the above civil revision petitions have been filed by one and the same parties, viz., the 11th and 12 defendants in the suit, as against the sole plaintiff and these defendants No.11 and 12 have filed two applications before the lower Court the first one in I.A. No.641 of 1998 in the pending suit in O.S. No.104 of 1995 and the second one in I.A. No.655 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai.

2. I.A. No.641 of 1998 has been filed by defendants No.11 and 12 under O.9, Rule 7, C.P.C. seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 9.9.1997 and the other I.A. No.655 of 1998 has been filed under Sec.151, C.P.C. seeking to appoint some other advocate- Commissioner to inspect the suit property and to file a report with plan, in the place of the advocate- Commissioner already appointed by the Court. The lower Court has passed individual orders in both those applications and since both the applications have been filed by one and the same parties to the suit against the same plaintiff and since being forming part of the same suit, both the above civil revision petitions are heard together and this common order is passed.

3. The petitioners would file their first application in I.A. No.641 of 1998 on averments such as that he is a resident of Madurai town and that he had already appeared before the Court in person in the above suit; that since he is working at Madurai, he requested one of his friends at Karaikudi to follow-up the matter and inform him of the developments; that since that friend did not communicate him the developments of the case, the petitioners, who are the 11th and 12th defendants had been set ex parte on 9.9.1997; that their absence was neither wilful nor wanton and on such grounds, they would pray to set aside the ex parte order passed by the lower Court.

4. This application would be opposed on the part of the respondents before the lower Court on a short counter filed with averments such as that the petitioners were aware of the proceedings of the case and in order to cause unnecessary delay and inconvenience to the respondent, they have filed the petition and that the petitioners would be in no way affected if the petition was not allowed. Only on these two grounds alleged, the respondent would pray to dismiss the application.

5. Based on these pleadings, the lower Court would pass an order dismissing the application with costs on grounds that for the allegations that the petitioner has relied on his friend to inform him of the position and developments of the case and that he failed to inform the same and since the petitioner is a resident of Madurai, he was not aware of the proceedings etc. have not been proved by proper evidence either oral or documentary; that in spite of receipt of summons on 9.9.1997, the petitioners have not responded to the later proceedings for about an year and the reasons assigned for such a long delay are also not substantiated, nor reliable, and therefore, would ultimately arrive at the conclusion to dismiss the application with costs.

6. It is an application filed under O.9, Rule 7, C.P.C. which contemplates that the defendant if on his appearance assigns good cause for his previous non-appearance, he may, upon such terms as the Court directs as to costs or otherwise, be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day, fixed for his appearance. Rule is clear to the effect that on such terms of costs imposed, the petition could be allowed, since it is a suit pending thereby meaning that it is unreasonable on the part of the Court to reject the plea of such a petition being filed by one of the defendants or some of defendants, since it is unreasonable to obstruct the defendant from participating in the very suit proceedings, where his valuable rights are involved, and therefore, as concluded by many upper forums of law that even in the event that such petitioners are not able to substantiate the reasons assigned on their part of their non-ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document