P.R. Shivakumar, J. - (1.) THE arguments advanced by Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.Rathina Asohan, counsel on record for the petitioner and by Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.S.Thirumavalavan, counsel on record for the respondent are heard. The copy of the impugned order, grounds of revision and the other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.
(2.) THE Respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S.No.198/2011 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharmapuri for recovery of possession of the suit property and also for a mandatory injunction for the removal of the superstructure put up by the revision petitioner herein/defendant. The suit was contested by the revision petitioner by filing a written statement. Meanwhile, the revision petitioner filed an application in I.A.SR.No.2/2014 to set aside the ex -parte decree dated 16.12.2013. When the said application was filed in the court below, the learned Principal District Munsif, Dharmapuri returned the said application stating that no ex -parte order was passed against the revision petitioner herein/defendant and a judgment was delivered on merits and asked a question as to how the said petition was maintainable. As against the same, the present revision has been filed invoking the power of Superintendence of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over the subordinate courts. Even after the re -presentation of the said petition with the endorsement that the judgment was only an ex -parte judgment and the decree drawn was only an ex -parte decree capable of being set aside under Order IX Rule 13 CPC in the light of the precedent, the application was not taken on file and on the other hand, it was adjourned periodically and at last, it was adjourned without being numbered to 20.02.2014 with a direction to check and call, while an execution petition filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff was taken on file and is pending. The present revision came to be filed for a direction to the court below to take up the application on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
(3.) THE respondent has entered appearance through counsel. Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, the learned senior counsel arguing for the counsel for the respondent, would submit that instead of prolonging the controversy, the civil revision petition may be allowed and a direction may be issued to the trial court to take up the application in I.A.SR.No.2/2014 on file, number the same and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a time to be fixed by this court.;