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 ie., 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.
2. 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.
sg To The Principal District Court, Coimbatore
-----------------------
C.R.P(NPD) No.3926 of 2008 A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN,J This matter is posted today "for being mentioned".
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner who would represent that as per orders of this Court in C.R.P(NPD) No.3926 of 2008, the revision petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- towards cost to the fourth respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of the order ie., on 6.1.2009. But he got the order copy only on 27.1.2009 and hence he could not comply with the said order of this Court in the said revision petition within the time stipulated. But now today he is ready to tender the cost of Rs.1500/- to the fourth respondent who has no objection for receiving the same. Endorsement made on the revision petition to that effect by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. Hence the condition imposed in this revision petition has been complied with and consequently, C.R.P.NPD No.3926 of 2008 is allowed.
28.1.2009 sg