An order passed by the court condoning the delay in re-presentation of the appeal papers is not a judicial order and, therefore, cannot be the subject-matter of a revision petition.

1. This is a petition under S. 115, C.P. Code by the respondents in C.M.P. No. 621 of 1976 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram. That Civil Miscellaneous Petition was one filed by the respondent herein for condonation of a delay of 555 days in re-presenting the appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge. Notice of this petition issued to the petitioners herein and they opposed the court condoing the delay. Overruling the objection, the court condoned the delay, and it is that order that is sought to be revised by the present Civil Revision petition.

2. As soon as the Civil Revision Petition came up for admission, I felt a doubt whether the Civil Revision Petition was competent at all in view of the fact that the delay that was condoned in the present case was not with reference to the proper presentation of the appeal, but with reference to the re-presentation of the appeal. In view of this doubt, I directed notice of this question to be given to the Advocates Association, Madras, the Bar Association, Madras, and the Women Lawyers, Association, Madras, and in response to my notice, they are represented before this court now and oppose the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners and contend that this Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable.

3. Consequently, the question for consideration is whether the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable.

4. Mr. K. N. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the petitioners, at on stage, sought to contend that the delay involved in the present case is not a delay in the re-presentation of the papers, but a delay in proper presentation of the appeal itself. I declined to allow Mr. Balasubramanian, to raise this point, because, the entire controversy proceeded before the lower court only on the basis that the delay involved was in the re-presentation of the appeal, and not in the proper presentation of the appeal, and the grounds of Civil Revision Petition before this court do not also contend that the delay involved in the present case was with reference to the proper presentation of the appeal and not with reference to the re-presentation of the papers. Under these circumstances, I proceed only on the basis that the delay involved in the present case is only in re-presentation.

5. Mr. Balasubramanian contends that O. 41, R. 3, C.P.C. makes specific provision as to what should be done when there is a defect in the memorandum of appeal that was presented and it gives three alternatives to the court, namely, to reject the memorandum of appeal or return to the appellant the papers for the purpose of being amended within a time to be fixed by the court or to be amended then and there. When, pursuant to this power of the court, the appeal papers are returned for amendment within a time to be fixed, S. 148, C.P.C. is immediately attracted and the power to excuse the delay is traceable to that section and an order passed under S. 148 is revisable under S. 115, C.P.C. As against this contention, the counsel representing the three bodies referred to above contend that an order passed by the court condoning the delay is not a judicial order at all, because there was no lis at that stage between any two parties and consequently, that order cannot be the subject-matter of a revision petition at all. In fact, Mr. Ratnam, learned counsel representating the Advocates Association, Madras, drew my attention to a decision of this court in In re: Chintapatla Venkatanarasimha Ramachandra Rao and others A.I.R. 1933 Mad. 358, wherein this court has held that any time that is allowed for re-presentation is only by way of concession, and therefore, with reference to such a concession granted by the court a respondent who had not even received the notice of the main case which would be issued only after the main case is admitted, has no locus standi to object to the granting of the said concession. In this particular case, as I pointed out already, notice was given to