Judgment :- 1. These civil revision petitions are focussed as against the fair and decreetal orders dated 13.09.2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram in I.A.Nos.281 of 2011 and 46 of 2011 in A.S.No.107 of 2009. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A thumb nail sketch of the germane facts, absolutely necessary for the disposal of these two civil revision petitions would run thus: a) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/appellants/plaintiffs would echo the cri de coeur of his clients to the effect that the appeal filed by the revision petitioners was dismissed for default; whereupon they filed an application I.A.No.281 of 2011 for restoring the appeal in time; that was returned to comply with technical defects; however, there was delay in representation of the said I.A.No.281 of 2011 while it was in unnumbered stage to the tune of 275 days. Hence, I.A.No.46 of 2011 was filed to get the delay of 275 days in representing the said I.A.No.281 of 2011 condoned. Whereas, both the applications were dismissed. Here it is to be noted that even before condoning the delay in representation, the main restoration application was also numbered. b) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, these two revisions have been focussed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would oppose both these revisions on the main ground that absolutely there was no reason to get such enormous delay condoned in representing the said application to get the appeal restored. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether the delay in filing the application to get the appeal restored can be condoned, in view of the reasons found set out in the affidavit accompanying the said application? 6. A mere poring over and perusal of the order the learned Judge would reveal that according to him absolutely there was no reason for condoning the delay in representation as each and every day's delay was not explained. The averments in the affidavit accompanying the said application for getting the delay condoned in representation would reveal that the returned papers got mixed in the Advocate's office and hence the same could not be represented in time. 7. The law was not to the effect that each and every day's delay should be explained. However, one should be diligent in prosecuting one's matter in the litigative process. 7. The law was not to the effect that each and every day's delay should be explained. However, one should be diligent in prosecuting one's matter in the litigative process. The fact remains that the application for restoring the appeal was presented in time. However, it was returned to carry out certain direction of the court. 8. It would not be out of context to specify here that initially the said fact of getting the appeal restored was returned on the ground that notice should be given to the other side; but such course should not have been adopted by the lower court. It is only after numbering the I.A and ordering notice, the petitioner is bound to give notice to the other side and this law has to be adhered to so far lower courts are concerned but the practice in High Court is different as specific rules here provide for such a course. 9. At this juncture, I would like to recollect and call up Rule 31 of the Civil Rules of Practice. "31. Notice – (1) Unless the court otherwise orders, notice of an interlocutory application shall be given to the other parties to the suit, matter or proceeding or their pleader not less than three days before the day appointed for the hearing of the application. (2) Such notice shall be served on the pleader whenever the party appears by such pleader. (3) Notice of the application may be served on a party not appearing by pleader by registered post, acknowledgement prepaid, to the address given in the pleading and in the event of its non-service on the party or of the party not appearing on the day fixed in the notice, the court may direct that the notice shall be delivered or sent to the proper officer to be served by him or by one of his subordinates on the party. If the party be absent or refused to receive the notice, the procedure prescribed in Rule 15 or Rule 17 of Order V of the Code, as the case may be, shall be followed. 10. If the party be absent or refused to receive the notice, the procedure prescribed in Rule 15 or Rule 17 of Order V of the Code, as the case may be, shall be followed. 10. Over and above that the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would also submit that had really the petitioners possessed any mala fide intention to drag on the proceedings, they would not have filed the application at all in time and they being the plaintiffs in the suit were interested in prosecuting the case. 11. I could see considerable force in his submission. Accordingly, the delay in representing the appeal papers can be condoned and it is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) payable by the petitioners to the respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. I would like to add one other point also. Here, the lower court was not justified in numbering the main application without condoning the delay in representing such application. Accordingly, the consequential order passed in I.A.No.281 of 2011 is also set aside for hearing the said I.A.No.281 of 2011 on merits. 13. With the above direction, both these civil revision petitions are disposed of. No costs.