ORDER
1.Both the civil revision petitions arise out of the same suit. Hence,
they were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The suit filed by the respondent was decreed ex parte on 22-3-1991. The defendants-revision petitioners have filed petitions under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dated 22-3-1991. The learned trial Judge, by the orders under revision dated 19-6-1997, allowed the petitions filed by the petitioners, under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC, on condition that the petitioners-defendants shall deposit half of the decretal amount together with costs into the Court on or before 3-7-1997. In the same order, the learned trial Judge has also stated that if the petitioners-defendants fail to deposit the said amount into the Court within the prescribed period, the petitions filed under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC stand dismissed. It appears that subsequently these applications were again posted before the trial Judge on 3-7-1997 though on 19-6-1997 the Court did not direct the office to call the case on 3-7-1997. On 3-7-1997, the learned trial Judge noticing that payment of money into the Court as directed in the order dated 19-6-1997 was not done by the petitioner-defendants, made an order dismissing the petitions filed under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. Hence, these two Civil Revision Petitions assailing the conditions imposed by the learned trial Judge in the order made on 19-6-1997.
3. Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent at the threshold contended that these C.R.Ps. under Section 115 C.P.C. arc not maintainable, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in M/s. Gopal and Co., v. M/s. K.Balarajaiah Siddirarmiht, . On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, placing reliance on the judgment of a Division J3ench of Madras High Court in Parthasarathi v. Chinnappayan and others, 1981 (1) MLJ 123, would maintain that the C.R.Ps are maintainable.
4. This Court, while dealing with the identical question in M/s. Gopal and Co. ‘s
case (supra), held that if the Court, while disposing of an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC, directs that non-compliance of the conditions imposed for allowing the application would result in the dismissal of application and the applicant does not comply with the direction, then the proper remedy is appeal and not revision. This ruling of the learned Judge is based on the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Ramayya v. Lakshmayya, AIR (31) 1944 Mad. 383. The distinction sought to be made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the subsequent judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Parthasarathi ‘s case (supra), is not acceptable to the Court. In fact, in that case, as pointed out by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, the learned trial Judge himself while passing the order on 13-7-1976, directing posting of the petition on 28-7-1976 and in that context the Division Bench stated that it is apparent that the trial Court had not finally disposed of the petition on 13-7-976, and if the petition has been finally disposed of on 13-7-1976 itself, the learned trial Judge would not have passed an order on 7-12-1976 dismissing the petition. Therefore, the facts of that case are distinguishable from the facts of this case. In the present case, the teamed trial Judge while imposing the conditions to be fulfilled by the petitioners-defendants for allowing the applications made it abundantly clear that in the event of non-compliance of the conditions, the petitions stand dismissed. It is relevant to note that no further order of the Court is necessary to bring about legal effect of dismissal of the petitions. The order made on 19-6-1997 clearly speaks of legal consequence of non-compliance of the conditions. It is admitted position that the petitioners did not fulfil the conditions for allowing the petitions before the expiry of the prescribed time, and therefore by operation of the order, the petitions filed under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC stood dismissed on the date of expiry of the time granted by the Court. Alternatively, the subsequent order made by the learned trial Judge on 3-7-1997 dismissing
the petition is of no help to the petitioners. This is because, as held by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Ramayya ‘s case (supra), what the learned trail Judge did on 3-7-1997 was to record the legal consequence of the non-compliance of the conditions imposed by his earlier in his order dated 19-6-1997. I do not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. No costs.