THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 4195 of 2009 Oral order: Aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2009, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 1248 of 2009 in I.A. No. 1077 of 2006 in I.A. No. 940 of 2005 in O.S. No. 120 of 2003 filed by the petitioner praying to condone the delay of 14 days in filing petition to set aside the dismissal order dated 05.03.2009 passed in I.A. No. 1077 of 2009, the petitioner filed the present C.R.P. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as ordered by the Court below, vide orders dated 05.02.2009 passed in I.A. No. 1077 of 2009, the petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- , but he could not deposit the same in time, and deposited the same with a delay of 14 days because the petitioner’s father was ill. However, the Court below without considering this aspect, has committed an error in dismissing the present application filed to condone the delay of 14 days in filing petition to set aside the dismissal order dated 05.03.2009. He submitted that the Court below instead of dismissing the application on the ground of laches, ought to have allowed the application and permitted the petitioner to contest the suit, and then adjudicate the same on merits. Hence, he prayed that the order under revision be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent by mis-representing the facts has obtained conditional order, and failed to comply with the same. He submitted that the respondent after obtaining ex parte decree dated 18.08.2003 against the petitioner, initiated execution proceedings in E.P. No. 11 of 2006, but based on the memo filed stating that ex parte decree has been stayed, the Court below closed the E.P. He submitted that since the petitioner failed to comply the conditional order, the Court below dismissed the application, and no interference is called for therewith and prayed that the C.R.P. be dismissed. Though the counsel for the respondent argued for dismissal of the C.R.P., but submitted that he has objection to the impugned order being set aside, the C.R.P. being allowed and the suit being adjudicated on merits, provided the respondent should be permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- already deposited by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no objection to the amount deposited by the petitioner being withdrawn by the respondent subject to his furnishing bank guarantee. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, and having regard to the agreed stand taken by them, as indicated above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the C.R.P. with the following directions: The order under revision is set aside. The Court below is directed to permit the respondent to withdraw the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- deposited by the petitioner on condition of the respondent furnishing bank guarantee for the said amount. The petitioner is directed to file his written statement. Thereafter, the Court below is directed to proceed further in the matter and dispose of the suit itself expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 19th October, 2009 KSR