Court has to see substantial justice is done.

1. The revision petitions arise under the following circumstances:

A final decree for redemption in favour of the respondents herein was passed on 28.3.1977. The respondents filled execution petition in E.P.No.413 of 1977. As they had not deposited the value of improvements, it was dismissed on 15.3.1978. Thereafter, they filed a fresh E.P. on 11.10.1985. It was returned on 17.4.1986 as the value of improvements had not been deposited. The same was re-presented with a challan for deposit for the value of improvements in 1997 (7.4.1997). The Executing Court directed the E.P. to be numbered on 9.4.1997. The petitioners herein received notice from court for appearance on 11.8.1997. The number shown in the notice was E.A.No.85 of 1997, which was for excusing the delay in depositing the value of improvements. The petitioners filed E.A.No.114 of 1999 for setting aside the order dated 9.4.1997 passed by the executing court directing the execution petition to be numbered. Both the applications were taken up jointly by the learned District Munsif, Kuzhithurai. By a common order the learned District Munsif allowed the application E.A.No.85 of 1997 for condonation of delay in depositing the amount and dismissed the application E.A.No.114 of 1999 filed for setting aside the order dated 9.4.1997 directing numbering of the execution petition. As against the common order in the said applications the present civil revision petitions have been filed.

2. Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, vehemently contended that the final decree was passed as early as 28.3.1997 and there was no E.P. filed or pending within 12 years from 28.3.1997 and the learned District Munsif ought to have dismissed E.A.No.85 of 1997 and allowed the application E.A.No.114 of 1999. According to the learned Counsel, on the date of presenting the application on 7.4.1997 the execution petition itself was barred by limitation. Even otherwise, the learned District Munsif erred in directing numbering of the execution petition without giving notice to the revision petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that power cannot be used to evade law of limitation and in the instant case, the lower court had exercised inherent powers to enable the respondents to evade the law of limitation. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments:

(1) C. Ganapathi Mudaliar v. N.Krishnamachari and others C. Ganapathi Mudaliar v. N.Krishnamachari and others C. Ganapathi Mudaliar v. N.Krishnamachari and others 43 MLJ. 184: M.V. Sundaresa Ayyar v. Pacala Subba Rao and others M.V. Sundaresa Ayyar v. Pacala Subba Rao and others M.V. Sundaresa Ayyar v. Pacala Subba Rao and others A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 417(2) and (2) 65 MLJ. 193: Y.Cusbar v. K.Subbarayan Y.Cusbar v. K.Subbarayan Y.Cusbar v. K.Subbarayan A.I.R. 1933 Mad. 258.

3. Mr.Sreekumaran Nair, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that this was a case of delay in re-presenting the papers and this was entirely a matter between the applicant and the court and the respondents had no say in that. In support of this stand, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions:

(1) 1993 T.L.N.J. 375 (D.B.) (2) Lakshminarayanan v. Vaigundanamamani and another Lakshminarayanan v. Vaigundanamamani and another Lakshminarayanan v. Vaigundanamamani and another (2000)2 C.T.C. 321; (3) S. Saravanan (Minor) represented by Mother and Next Friend A.Latha v. The Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai-104 S.Saravanan (Minor) represented by Mother and Next Friend A.Latha v. The Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai-104 S.Saravanan (Minor) represented by Mother and Next Friend A.Latha v. The Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai-104 (2000)3 C.T.C. 11; (4) Kannammal and another v. Subatra Kannammal and another v. Subatra Kannammal and another v. Subatra (2000)4 C.T.C. 127 and the