THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1151 of 2010 DATED:21-06-2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 01-02-2010, in I.A.No.282 of 2002 in O.S.No.137 of 1997 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narayanapet. 2. Brief facts are that the respondents herein instituted O.S.No.137 of 1997 for partition of the plaint schedule property mentioned therein and for possession of their share. Though the respondents have put in their appearance initially, they have not contested the said suit. Hence, they were set ex parte and an ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 30-11-1998. Thereafter, I.A.No.150 of 2001 was filed before the Court below to set aside the said ex parte decree. However, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narayanapet by his order, dated 19-12-2001, dismissed the said application. Questioning the same, they approached this Court and filed C.M.A.No.331 of 2001 and the said appeal was allowed by this Court on condition of the petitioners depositing the suit costs within a period of four weeks. However, as the suit costs were not deposited within time, respondents filed I.A.No.282 of 2002 for the purpose of executing the said preliminary decree. The same was opposed by the petitioners stating that the Court below did not impose any costs while passing an ex parte decree and hence there was no need for them to deposit any suit costs and the trial Court should have reopened the suit. However, a docket order was passed on 01-02-2010 stating that the suit costs, as directed by this Court in C.M.A.No.331 of 2002, are not deposited and thus allowed the said application and appointed an Advocate- Commissioner for the purpose of demarcating the plaint schedule property so that a final decree can be passed. As stated supra, the said order is questioned in this revision. 3. It is true that as per the order passed by this Court on 28-10- 2009, while allowing C.M.A.No.331 of 2002 petitioners were directed to deposit the suit costs but from a perusal of the ex parte decree that has been passed by the Court below in O.S.No.137 of 1997, I do not find anything with regard to the suit costs. In fact, in the said decree, it is stated that there is no order as to the suit costs. May be it is true that nothing was mentioned about the costs in the said decree and this Court while allowing the said appeal directed the petitioners to deposit the suit costs. It does not mean that when once a preliminary decree was passed and the said order is set aside in the normal course, the Courts would direct the parties to deposit certain amount towards costs. Now that the petitioners have come forward stating that they are prepared to deposit the costs and as the suit was of the year, 1997, this Court feels it just and proper to direct the petitioners to pay the costs of Rs.2000/- (rupees two thousand only) to the respondents herein within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the light of this order, the said order, dated 01-02-2010, passed in I.A.No.282 of 2002 in O.S.No.137 of 1997 i.e. appointing an Advocate-Commissioner for the purpose of demarcating the suit schedule property shall be set aside. 4. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. On ascertaining the fact that the said costs are paid, the Court below may reopen O.S.No.137 of 1997 and decide the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 21st June, 2010. Note Furnish C.C. of the order within one week. B/o Tsy