affidavit. In fact, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant herself stated that she was not able to attend the Court at the time of hearing, since she was attending two other Courts, which was entrusted by her senior and before she reach the trial Court, the matter was called and no one is appearing on behalf of the defendant. On behalf of the defendant’s side, the evidence was closed. Therefore, the reason given by the petitioner/defendant is not convinced the Court. But, any how the Appellate Court namely, VI Assitant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in CMA.No.71 of 2010 has considered the claim of the defendant and stating that considering the nature of the claim that which is based on the goods sold and delivered in the year 1999 and the matter was prolonged more than 7 years, instead of driving the parties to multiplicity of proceedings, the Appellate Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, it will be fit and proper to give an opportunity to the defendant with the condition that the defendant should have deposit the entire claim and accordingly CMA.No.71 of 2010 was allowed, by setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.20897 of 2009 in O.S.No.4946 of 2003, dated 09.04.2010 and in default, CMA.No.71 of 2010 stand dismissed. Challenging the said order, the Appellant/ Petitioner/Defendant has come up with the present civil revision petition No.1654 of 2011 before this Court.
