The court emphasized the importance of raising objections before the lower court and held that objections not raised before the lower court cannot be raised in the appellate or revisional forum.

Civil Revision Petition No:1616 of 2006 has been filed against the order dated 29.03.2006 made in I.A.No:3071/2004 in O.S.No:10596/87 passed by the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. Civil Revision Petition No:1617 of 2006 has been against the order dated 17. 2005 made in I.A.No:17086/2004 in O.S.No:10596/87 passed by the same court.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit OS.No:10596 of 1987. the said suit was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.82,700/= and for salary at the rate of Rs.2000/= per month from 24. 1987 along with allowances. Written statement was filed by the petitioner. The suit came to be decreed ex parte on 26. 1992. The respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No:13071 of 2004 on 27. 2004 for passing of a final decree. According to the petitioner it was only when the notice was received in the said I.A., the petitioner was aware of the ex parte decree and therefore filed I.A.NO:17086 of 2004 to condone the delay in filing the petitioner to set aside the ex parte decree. The I.A filed by the plaintiff has been ordered and the I.A., filed by the defendant for setting aside the exparte decree has been dismissed and as against which, both the CRPs are filed.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner firstly contended that the exparte decree in the suit is not a preliminary decree since it is a suit for simple recovery of money. No time frame has been fixed, no contingency has been envisaged and it is a simple decree for recovery of money. Only in mortgage suits, Partition suits and suits for accounting, preliminary decree and final decree will come into play and therefore, the decree dated 26. 1992 it not a preliminary decree but is a final decree by itself due to which there cannot be a petition to pass a final decree and as a result the petition filed by the plaintiff for passing of a final decree is not maintainable.

5. Further in the I.A., the plaintiff has quoted a wrong provision of law viz., Order XXXIV Rule 2(b) CPC when the suit is a simple money suit. Further, even assuming that final decree petition is maintainable, the period of limitation under Art.137 of the Limitation Act is only 3 years and not 12 year and therefore the I.A., filed beyond the period of 3 years is not maintainable. It is also further contended that the claim for holiday allowance, conveyance allowance, medical allowance and bonus are part of the suit claim and they have been ascertained in the suit itself and there cannot be a separate petition claiming the same.

6. It is also stated that the Execution Petition filed at the first instance was rejected on the alleged instruction that for ascertainment of the amount a petition for passing of final decree can be filed at the later time, and without challenging the same, the same will not entitle the plaintiff to file a second petition which is not sustainable in law. Further, the maintainability of the said petition can be canvassed at any stage.

7. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that on the basis of the exparte decree he filed EP (SR) No.27187/2003 within the limitation period. But the office returned the papers on the ground that without assigning the amount of allowance and bonus the respondent cannot maintain the petition since the decree does not state the amount of bonus and allowance. On 11. 2004 the IX Assistant Judge also passed an order that without determining the amount of allowances and bonus and salary, the EP cannot be filed. In the said order it is also stated that after fixing the amount of allowance and salary, the plaintiff can file the E.P. afresh. The learned Judge also orally instructed to file a final decree petition before the concerned court and fix the amount of salary and allowance. It is only as per the direction of the learned Judge the I.A., for fixing the allowances and salary was filed whi