Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1420 (AP)

B. Janakiramaiah Chetty v. A. K. Parthasarathi

2001-11-08

B.S.A.SWAMY

body2001
B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) SINCE the subject-matter, the relief sought, and the parties are same in both these civil revision petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) IN these two revision petitions, the oft-repeated controversy, i. e. , when the Court passed an order in the absence of one of the parties to the proceedings, whether it has to be treated as an ex parte decree or a judgment on merits, in the light of the explanation to Order 17, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as inserted by Amendment Act 104 of 1976. ( 3 ) THIS issue is squarely covered by a judgment of the Apex Court in Prakash Chander Manchanda and another v, Smt. Janki Manchanda, AIR 1987 SC 42 and two judgments of this Court in B. Sheshagiri Rao v. Sri Ramalingeswara Swamivaru Devvasthanam, Nadigampadu, 1981 (1) ALT 80 and Eswaraiah v. S. A. Gaffoor and another, 1998 (4) ALD 222 = 1998 (4) ALT 234 . However, as the Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued for a considerable length of time that the order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, in OS No. 117 of 1992, dated 23-6-1999, has to be treated as a judgment on merits, I am constrained to have a fresh look on the cases in the light of the arguments addressed before this Court. ( 4 ) LOT of bad blood is flowing between the parties and I need not refer the facts, which are not germane to the issue in these revision petitions, and hence, I am confining myself to the facts that are essential to decide the controversy involved in these revision petitions. ( 5 ) THE petitioner herein filed OA No. 117 of 1992 against two Police Officials of Tamil Nadu State and a Transport Contractor of the State of Andhra Pradesh, claiming Rs. 10,000,00/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as damages for detaining him illegally in the police custody in the State of Tamil Nadu, perhaps at the instance of the 3rd respondent, and bringing disreputation to him. The respondents having received the summons filed their written statements on 12-4-1993. Issued were framed on 1-10-1993. Thereafter, the suit was taken up for trial. The trial seemed to have proceeded from March, 1997 to March, 1999, and the matter stood posted for arguments on 3-4-1999. The respondents having received the summons filed their written statements on 12-4-1993. Issued were framed on 1-10-1993. Thereafter, the suit was taken up for trial. The trial seemed to have proceeded from March, 1997 to March, 1999, and the matter stood posted for arguments on 3-4-1999. At that stage the respondent seemed to have filed IA No. 1 13 of 1999 for reopening the case for adducing additional evidence and another IA No. l 14 of 1999 to summon the Superintending Engineer (Constructions) PWD, Vellore, to cause production of type design plan of Bhagayam Police Station where the petitioner seemed to have been allegedly detained. The learned Judge seemed to have heard the arguments on these two applications on 14-6-1999 and adjourned them to 22-6-1999. On that day, the respondent seemed to have filed another IANo. 126 of 1999, bringing some factual and legal aspects relating to the above-mentioned two applications. The learned Judge seemed to have adjourned the matter to 23-6-1999 for filing counter in IA No. 126 of 1999 and for hearing. While it is the case of the respondents that on 23-8-1999 a representation was made during the call work to pass orders in the applications as per the order of trial Court in IA No. 241 of 1999. It is seen that they were set ex parte as no representation was made on their behalf, and dismissed all the applications and decreed the suit ex parte on the same day. It is also seen that the learned Senior Civil Judge passed an elaborate order in IA No. 114 of 1999. From the judgment of the lower Court, it is seen that after extracting the issues framed in the suit, the following order was passed: "d1 to D3 called absent, no representation for the defendants, suit is decreed with costs together with interest at 6% from the date of suit till realisation. " ( 6 ) HAVING come to know of this order, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed IA No. 241 of 1999 stating that their absence on the day when the case was posted was not wanton, but as the Governor of Tamil Nadu visited Vellore, they are on duty, and could not be present in the Court, respondent 3 filed IA No. 309 of 1999 for the same relief. 1 and 2 filed IA No. 241 of 1999 stating that their absence on the day when the case was posted was not wanton, but as the Governor of Tamil Nadu visited Vellore, they are on duty, and could not be present in the Court, respondent 3 filed IA No. 309 of 1999 for the same relief. Having recorded the evidence, the Court below by an elaborate order, dated 2-7-2001, allowed both the applications, and the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder for better appreciation of the case: "it is the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 that in view of the visits of Governor and Chief Minister they have to pre-arrange the programmes. Under these circumstances there is no material to suspect the bona fides of the petitioners. A fair trial requires an opportunity shall be given to both parties to contest the matter. This is a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of rupees ten lakhs alleging that the PWs. l and 2 detained the respondent illegally. So the matter has to be decided on merits not on a technical grounds hence the ends of justice requires an opportunity shall be given for the petitioners to contest the matter and the petitioners should know cogent reason for the decision of the Court. The suit docket in OS No. l17/1992 shows that due to non-appearance of the petitioners and due to no representation of the advocate the suit is decreed and that does not contain any cogent reason for coming to the conclusion. Under these circumstances, there are valid grounds to set aside the ex parts decree dated 23-6-1999 and accordingly petition is allowed without costs. " ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the said orders, the petitioner filed CRP No. 3277 of 2001, by which time the police officials filed caveat in this Court. Without granting any stay, I posted the matter to 27-8-2001 for counter. Subsequently, the second revision petition, i. e. , CRP No. 3472 of 2001 was filed by the respondent No. 3 and there was no caveat. I ordered interim stay of all further proceedings on 13-8-2001. Without granting any stay, I posted the matter to 27-8-2001 for counter. Subsequently, the second revision petition, i. e. , CRP No. 3472 of 2001 was filed by the respondent No. 3 and there was no caveat. I ordered interim stay of all further proceedings on 13-8-2001. ( 8 ) NOW, the issues to be considered are whether the judgment of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, dated 23-6-1999, has to be treated as an ex parte judgment and whether the application for setting aside the ex parte decree filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable in law or not. ( 9 ) UNDER Section 2 (9) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a judgment is defined as the statement given by the Judge on the ground of a decree or order and under Section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, decree is defined as a formal expression of an adjudication, which so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section 144, but shall not include (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default. ( 10 ) A reading of the definitions of judgment and decree clearly indicates that there shall be a formal expression of adjudication of the dispute, which conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit. ( 11 ) ADMITTEDLY, the order passed in the suit, extracted supra, shows that the suit was decreed with 6% interest on the ground that D1 to D3 are called absent. But there was not formal adjudication of the dispute in terms of Section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. But, the Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that in the light of Rules 2 and 3 of Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has no option except to treat the decree as judgment on merits. For better appreciation of the case, it is useful to extract both the provisions: "2. But, the Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that in the light of Rules 2 and 3 of Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has no option except to treat the decree as judgment on merits. For better appreciation of the case, it is useful to extract both the provisions: "2. Procedure if parlies fail to appear on day fixed:where, on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appear, the Court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order IX or make such other order as it thinks fit. " 3. Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence, etc : Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, the Court may, notwithstanding such default, (a) if the parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith; or (b) if the parties are, or any of them is, absent, proceed under Rule 2. ( 12 ) FROM the above it is seen that under Rule 3, if any of the party to the suit fails to produce his/her evidence or cause the attendance of his/her witnesses, or performs any other act necessary for the progress of the suit, the Court is empowered to pass the orders : (a) as if the parties are present and decide the suit forthwith, (b) if the parties or any of them is absent, the Court can proceed under Rule 2. ( 13 ) IN other words, discretion is given to the Court either to proceed with the suit and decide the issues in controversy when a party to the proceedings failed to appear on the date to which it is posted, or to take recourse to Rule 2. Under Rule 2, if any of the parties failed to appear the Court, the Court is again given discretion to dispose of the suit in one of the modes specified under Order IX. Under Rule 2, if any of the parties failed to appear the Court, the Court is again given discretion to dispose of the suit in one of the modes specified under Order IX. Under Order IX, Rule 6 (a), where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, and if it is proved that the summons were duly served, the Court may make an order that the suit be heard exparte. ( 14 ) FROM the above, it is seen that if the defendant fails to appear, the Court is expected to dispose of the suit ex parte. When once the suit is decreed exparte, it is always open to the defendant to file an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree by showing sufficient cause for his/her absence and the Court is bound to consider the said application on merits and pass orders. But, by virtue of the explanation, on which the Counsel for the petitioner places much reliance, in a case where evidence or specific portion of the evidence of the parties is recorded, and if any party fails to appear on the day on which the suit was posted, the Court, may in its discretion, proceed with the case as if the party was present. In other words, if the Court wants to proceed with the case as if the defendant is present, it has to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 3 (a), i. e. , it has to proceed with the suit and decide the same on merits. From the above, it is seen that discretion is given to the Court either to proceed with the case as if the party is present and decide the suit on merits or set him/her ex parte and pass an ex parte judgment. ( 15 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the instant case, the petitioner cannot contend that the judgment was passed on merits or the judgment contains the reasons or findings on the issues that have arisen for consideration in this suit. The order clearly says that as D1 to D3 are called absent, the suit was decreed with 6% interest. ( 15 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the instant case, the petitioner cannot contend that the judgment was passed on merits or the judgment contains the reasons or findings on the issues that have arisen for consideration in this suit. The order clearly says that as D1 to D3 are called absent, the suit was decreed with 6% interest. As the Court did not pass the judgment on merits, the Counsel cannot contend that it is a judgment in the eye of law by taking shelter under the explanation. As stated supra, the explanation is not a mandatory one, it is a discretionary power given to the Court, the Court is empowered to proceed with the suit as if the party is present and decide the same on merits, otherwise, it can dispose of the suit in one of the modes mentioned under Order IX in case when the defendant is called absent, after service of summons the Court has to proceed with the suit ex pane. "proceed" does not mean that decreeing the suit without adverting to the merits and demerits of the case of the plaintiff. The law is well settled on this proposition that the plaintiff has to succeeded or fail on the pleadings and the evidence adduced by him. Admittedly, the impugned judgment does not discuss either the pleadings or the evidence that was led in support of the plea of the petitioner. The suit was simply allowed. The word ex parte is not used. The judgment is to be treated only as an ex parte judgment within the four corners of the ex parte decree. In fact, I extracted the reason given by the learned Judge in allowing the application. From that also, it is seen that the Court has treated the judgment passed by it only as an ex parte judgment, but not a judgment on merits. ( 16 ) THE Apex Court considered the effect of amendment i. e. , the explanation to Order 17, Rule 2 in Prakash Chander Manchanda s case (supra ). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above case held that "the trial Court having closed the evidence of the defendant on 30-10-1985, as non appeared on behalf of the defendants, posted the matter for arguments on 1-11-1985, and the matter went on for considerable time, and ultimately the judgment was dictated and pronounced. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above case held that "the trial Court having closed the evidence of the defendant on 30-10-1985, as non appeared on behalf of the defendants, posted the matter for arguments on 1-11-1985, and the matter went on for considerable time, and ultimately the judgment was dictated and pronounced. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that there was no evidence on record on behalf of the defendant and as such the explanation to Order 17, Rule 2 was not applicable at all and an application under Order IX, Rule 13 is maintainable. " ( 17 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner tries to distinguish this judgment by contending that while there was no evidence of defendant in that case, in the instance case the evidence of the respondents was recorded and closed. However the Counsel fails to realize the fact that though there is evidence on record, the Court failed to consider the evidence and record the findings on the issues framed for consideration in the suit. The law on this aspect is also well settled. Even if one of the parties failed to appear, and there is substantial evidence on record, if the Court wants to proceed with the case, it has to decide the case on merits. Merely on the ground that there is evidence on record, a laconic order or cryptic order "suit decreed", cannot be treated either as a judgment or a decree in the eye of law. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court, I have taken the view in Eswaraiah s case (supra ). The mere fact that the trial Judge proceeded with the case after setting the petitioner ex parte and such a decree does not amount to be a decree passed on merits. Hence, an application under Order IX, Rule 13 is maintainable in law. ( 18 ) HIS Lordship Justice Kodandaramaiah, as he then was, considered the effect of the explanation in B. Seshagiri Rao s case (supra ). In paragraph No. 8 of the judgment, his Lordship extracted the 27th Report of the Law Commission, wherein the Law Commission opined that in cases not falling under Rule 13, the judgment must be treated as one delivered under Rule 2 and the remedy under Order IX is not lost. In paragraph No. 8 of the judgment, his Lordship extracted the 27th Report of the Law Commission, wherein the Law Commission opined that in cases not falling under Rule 13, the judgment must be treated as one delivered under Rule 2 and the remedy under Order IX is not lost. In Paragraph 10 of the said judgment, his Lordship observed that the remedy under Order IX is lost or not, the Court has to see not with reference to the issues framed but with reference to the evidence recorded therein, and deliver the judgment on merits, but the requirements of explanation appended to Rule 2 as specified and not treating the absenting party as present. Therefore, when an application is filed by the absenting or defaulting party to set aside the order and decree passed in his absence, the Court must see whether explanation is properly invoked against him/her and if the requirement of the explanation i. e. , adducing of evidence or substantial portion of evidence by him/her is not satisfied, it must be held that the application is not maintainable. From the above, it is seen that while considering the application filed by the defendants under Order IX, Rule 13, to set aside the ex parte decree, the Court has to see whether the explanation appended to Rule 2 was properly invoked or not. If the explanation is properly invoked, the result would be that the judgment should be passed on merits i. e. , the judgment should contain the statement of facts of the case, the issues framed and the evidence led by the parties with reference to the issues and the findings of the Court thereunder. Merely on the ground that the party adduced evidence, a cryptic order passed by the Court cannot be treated as judgment on merits. Hence, it has to be safely presumed that the explanation to Rule 2 of Order XVII was not properly invoked by the Court in proceeding with the case. In fact, that is the view taken by the Court itself that it has passed an order not on merits and on that ground it allowed the application. The Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in Anjuman-e-Tahari (Jawal Committee) v, Smt. Shah Nawaz Begum and others, 1994 (1) An. In fact, that is the view taken by the Court itself that it has passed an order not on merits and on that ground it allowed the application. The Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in Anjuman-e-Tahari (Jawal Committee) v, Smt. Shah Nawaz Begum and others, 1994 (1) An. WR 342, wherein the learned Judge has taken the view in the absence of the defendant if the Court acts as per the explanation to Rule 2 of Order 17, the judgment cannot be deemed to be an ex parte decree. ( 19 ) I have gone through the judgment and nowhere I found that the judgment passed by the trial Court, in that case, is like that of the order passed in this case. If the judgment is on merits, it has to be presumed that explanation was invoked otherwise not. In fact, the learned Judge also approved the view taken by Justice Kodandaramayya, in Seshagiri Rao s case (supra ). In the absence of any information that the judgment of the trial Court in that case is similar to that of the judgment in this case, it is difficult to hold that the judgment in this case is not an ex parte judgment, more so in the light of the approval of the judgment in Seshagiri Rao s case (supra), in this case. ( 20 ) THE Counsel nextly relied on a judgment in Kotha Venkata Punna Rao v. Kotha Lakshmaiah and others, 1985 LS 42 , to the same affect. From the said judgment, it is seen that the judgment of the Court below is on merits. It is suffice to quote the relevant paragraph of the judgment: in view of the change in legal position, the order passed by the lower Court dismissing the O. P. , application on merits is perfectly in consonance with law. It does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. " ( 21 ) HENCE, this judgment is not of help to the Counsel for the petitioner. ( 22 ) THE next case relied on by the Counsel for the petitioner is in M/s. Kalagara Hari Babu v. Edupuganti Krishna Rao (died) and another, 1996 (4) ALD 244 = 1996 (3) ALT 731 . " ( 21 ) HENCE, this judgment is not of help to the Counsel for the petitioner. ( 22 ) THE next case relied on by the Counsel for the petitioner is in M/s. Kalagara Hari Babu v. Edupuganti Krishna Rao (died) and another, 1996 (4) ALD 244 = 1996 (3) ALT 731 . In this case, though the Court has given number of opportunities to the plaintiff to lead evidence he failed to do so and in those circumstances, the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff seemed to have filed an application under Order IX, Rule 9 for setting aside the default order, but the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached this Court and my learned Brother Justice Bapat held that it is an order passed under Rule 3 of Order XVII but not an order under Rule 2 of Order XVII as the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence, even after the Court shown indulgence in adjourning the case number of times, the Court was forced to dismiss the suit, i. e. , in accordance with Rule 3 (a ). To put it more specifically, the plaintiff was present and was not prepared to adduce evidence in support of his pleadings. Hence, the Court proceeded with the suit and dismissed the same, as the pleadings were not supported by any evidence. Further, this being an order under Rule 3 (a), no explanation under Rule 9, Order IX is maintainable in this case. Therefore, this judgment also cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. ( 23 ) THE next judgment on which the Counsel for the petitioner relied on is in Re. Ramineni Surayanarayana, AIR 1980 AP 129 . In this case, the Counsel for the defendant was present and his request for adjournment was refused. Thereafter, he did not withdraw from the case or report no instructions. In those circumstances, the Court recorded the plaintiff s evidence in the presence of the defendant s Counsel and on the next day pronounced the judgment, and passed a decree in his presence, Again, from the facts, it is seen that the Court below recorded the evidence and passed the judgment on merits. In those circumstances, the Court recorded the plaintiff s evidence in the presence of the defendant s Counsel and on the next day pronounced the judgment, and passed a decree in his presence, Again, from the facts, it is seen that the Court below recorded the evidence and passed the judgment on merits. In paragraph No. 4 of the above judgment, their Lordships held as follows: "in the instant case, from the proceedings of the Court and the judgment recorded by it, it is clear that the defendant was present through his Counsel both on 3-7-1978 and 4-7-1978. The evidence was recorded in his presence and the judgment was pronounced in his presence. Although he sought an adjournment was refused he did not cease to represent the defendant-petitioner. He did not withdraw from the case or fail to participate in the proceedings. Merely because he did not lead any evidence to substantiate the plea taken by the defendant, it cannot be said that the defendant was set ex parts and an ex parte judgment and decree was rendered against him. Consequently a petition under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC does not lie. That is what the lower Court has held and I see no reason to interfere with the order. Even otherwise, assuming that a petition under Order 9, Rule 13, does not lie, there are no merits in this petition. He has not adduced any explanation as to why he could not be present although several adjournments were given. " ( 24 ) FROM the above, it is seen that the Counsel for the defendant is very much present at the time when the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded and he did not lead any evidence to prove the plea taken by him. In those circumstances, the defendant was set ex parte and an ex parte judgment and decree was rendered against him. ( 25 ) THE facts of this case are altogether different from the instant case as in the instant case evidence was led in at the time when the case was taken up. The Court below decreed the suit by a cryptic order on the ground that the Counsel for the defendant was not present at the time when the case was called, though the Counsel for the defendant reported ready during the call work. The Court below decreed the suit by a cryptic order on the ground that the Counsel for the defendant was not present at the time when the case was called, though the Counsel for the defendant reported ready during the call work. When the Counsel reported ready for the case and when the case was called he was not there, normally the Court is expected to pass over the matter as the Counsel might have held up in other Court, instead of passing this type of orders. ( 26 ) IN I. T. C. Limited, Hyderabad v. The Coromandal Cashews Limited, Madras, 1999 (3) ALD 238 = 1999 (3) ALT 120 , a case has arisen under Arbitration Act. In an application for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitrator Act, the Court without waiting for a counter, and having refused to grant time to file counter, passed an order simply ""heard arguments, petition allowed". Having taken the view, such an order cannot be considered as an order on merits, and it is only an ex parte order, an application under Order IX, Rule 13 is maintainable. ( 27 ) IN Y. Lakshmi v. Marella Lakshmi Kanthan, 1994 (1) ALT 307 , this Court has taken the view that mere presence of an advocate without proceeding with the trial, cannot be treated as appearance of party and the decree passed in such circumstances, to be treated only as a decree passed ex parte and not a decree passed on merits. Hence, an application under Order IX, Rule 13 is maintainable. ( 28 ) IN International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. , 2001 (4) DT (SC) 21, the question that arose before the Supreme Court is whether a decree passed by the trial Court is a decree on merits. The said judgment is as follows: "there be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of US $49,178. 50 plus interest of US$717. 00 ANF Court costs. A total of US $49,895. 50 plus 243. 75 pounds. " having reviewed the case law, their Lordships held: "this judgment and decree does not indicate whether any documents were looked into and/or whether the merits of the case was at all considered. It merely grants to the respondents a decree for the amounts mentioned therein. 00 ANF Court costs. A total of US $49,895. 50 plus 243. 75 pounds. " having reviewed the case law, their Lordships held: "this judgment and decree does not indicate whether any documents were looked into and/or whether the merits of the case was at all considered. It merely grants to the respondents a decree for the amounts mentioned therein. To be noted that the appellant had, by his letter dated 8th November, 1997, replied to the Notice of the respondent dated 8th October, 1997. In this reply it had been mentioned that goods were of inferior quality and not as per contract. Court has not applied its mind or dealt with this aspect. It has not examined points at controversy between the parties. It is given ex parte as appellant did not appear at hearing of suit. It is not a judgment on merits. " ( 29 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to refer to the decisions of some other High Courts, but I declined to look into those judgments as the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court as well as this High Court. In the light of the aforementioned discussion, I have no manner of doubt that the impugned judgment passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, in OS No. 117 of 1992, is only an ex parte judgment and it cannot be considered as a judgment on merits. In other words, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, did not invoke the explanation to Rule 2 of Order XVII, while passing the judgment in OS No. l17 of 1992. Had he invoked that provision, he is expected to pass a reasoned judgment on this issues framed for consideration with reference to the pleadings and the evidence let in by the parties even if the defendant is not present at the time. Hence, the applications filed under Order IX, Rule 13 to set aside the ex parte judgment are maintainable and hence the order passed by the Court below do not call for any interference from this Court. ( 30 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner filed CMP No. 17809 of 2001 in CRP No. 3277 of 2001 to prosecute the respondent Nos. ( 30 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner filed CMP No. 17809 of 2001 in CRP No. 3277 of 2001 to prosecute the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence of perjury on the ground that though they were at Tamil Nadu, in the affidavit filed in support of the caveat petitioner, it was mentioned as if it was sworn at Hyderabad and also their signatures are not tallying. ( 31 ) I am not inclined to pass any orders on this application, and if the petitioner so wishes he can work out his remedies available under law. ( 32 ) ACCORDINGLY, the civil revision petitions are dismissed with costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 2,000/ -.