JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed challenging Ext P8 common order passed in IA Nos.1629 and 1630 of 2018 in IA Nos.259 and 261 of 2018 in OS No.953/2013 of the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Nedumangad. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff.

2. The antecedent facts leading to Ext P8 order, in a nutshell, are; the respondent has filed the suit, against the petitioner, seeking a decree for specific performance. The petitioner was set ex parte. Even though he filed IA Nos.259 and 261 of 2018 to set aside the ex parte decree and to condone the delay, the applications were dismissed for default. Then, the petitioner filed IA Nos.1630/2018 and 1629/2018 to restore IA Nos.259 and 261 of 2018 and to condone the delay in filing the restoration application. But, the court below, by the impugned Ext P8 order, dismissed IA Nos.1629 and 1630 of 2018. Ext P8 order is manifestly wrong and unsustainable in law.

Hence the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.Sreekanth S.Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.G.Sudheer, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Today, when the original petition was taken up for consideration