AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Jagadeesan, J.—This revision has been filed against the order imposing condition for setting aside the ex parte decree. It is clear from the
records that the counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, before the Court below had reported no instructions and thereafter, the ex parte
decree was passed. Immediately after the passing of the ex parte decree, the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree has been filed, which
reveals that the petitioner is very watchful about the proceedings in the Court. Hence, the conduct of the petitioner is nothing but to protract the
proceedings and the lower Court had carefully taken into consideration the same, while imposing the condition of directing the petitioner to deposit
.50% of the decree amount. Hence, I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the Court below.
Nowadays, it has become essential to impose such a condition, especially taking into consideration of the conduct of the litigants as well as the
non-cooperation of the advocates in the disposal of the cases. Hence, I fully agree with the condition imposed by the trial Court. The petitioner is
granted three weeks'' time to comply with the conditional order of the lower Court. With the above direction, this Revision Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the above C.M.P. is also dismissed.