AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—This revision has been directed against the order passed in I.A. No. 2309 of 2007 in ELOP. No. 330 of 2006. The said application was filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC. There is no dispute as to the said application to restore ELOP. No. 330 of 2006 was filed in time. The learned trial Judge has dismissed the said application on the ground that the reasoning stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application by the petitioner is that since he was ill, he could not give instructions to his advocate to represent his case on the date of hearing. But he has not produced any material before the Court to show that he was ill on the date of hearing i.e., on 10.7.2007. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that an opportunity must be given to the petitioner to put forth his case after restoring ELOP.No.330 of 2006 but on cost which this Court fix as Rs. 1500/- to the contesting respondent viz., 4th respondent Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy.
In fine, this civil revision petition is allowed on condition, the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) only towards cost to the fourth respondent within a period of two weeks from today, failing which the civil revision petition shall deem to have been dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2008 is closed.