The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order and decreetal order dated 30.6.2009 passed in I.A.No.45 of 2008 in O.S.No.37 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Erode.
2. The suit is filed for declaration and for permanent injunction. The revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit. The plaintiff/respondent filed I.A.No.45 of 2008 for appointment of advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property and to measure the same with the help of surveyor. Such application was dismissed on 13.10.2008. Challenging the said order plaintiff filed CRP(PD)No.4199 of 2008 before this court. The present revision petitioners, who are respondents in CRP (PD)No.4199 of 2008 were represented by a counsel. However, none appears on behalf of the respondents on that date. Hence, the CRP (PD)No.4199 of 2008 came to be allowed. Consequently, I.A.No.45 of 2008 was also allowed. The trial court based on the order passed in CRP (PD) No.4199 of 2008, appointed an advocate-commissioner by order dated 30.6.2009. Such order is under challenge.
3. The main ground taken in the present CRP is that on 18.2.2009, the counsel for the revision petitioners, who are the respondents in CRP (PD)No.4199 of 2008 was prevented from attending the court. He has filed a petition to set aside the order dated 18.2.2009 passed in CRP (PD)No.4199 of 2008 along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the set aside petition. The grievance of the revision petitioners is that the court below has passed the final order without considering the objection filed by way of memo before the trial court stating the above said reason. Present CRP is filed to set aside the order dated 30.6.2009 passed in I.A.No.45 of 2008.
4. At the threshold, this Civil Revision Petition has to be dismissed for the reason that in the typeset of papers, there is no material placed to show that the revision petitioners have filed an application to set aside the ex parte order or for condonation of delay. In any event CRP (PD) No.4199 of 2008 was heard in open court and the counsel for the revision petitioners in that case appeared before the court. No good reason has been shown as to why the counsel for the respondents in CRP (PD) No.4199 of 2008 could not attend the court. The trial court has obeyed the direction of this court and there is no impropriety or illegality in passing the order dated 30.6.2009.