THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 1797 of 2009 Dated: 05-02-2010 Between:- Gudivada Panakalu Rao ..Petitioner. And Chittoor Venkata Subba Rao Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 1797 of 2009 Oral Order: This revision is directed against the order dated 13- 10-2008 rejecting I.A.No. 684 of 2007 in O.S.No. 239 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed an application under Order-IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside the order dated 21-12-2006 dismissing O.S.No. 239 of 2004 for default and to restore I.A.No. 176 of 2006. The suit is filed against the respondent herein for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note. The suit was dismissed on 27-12-2005 for default. The revision petitioner thereupon filed I.A.No. 176 of 2006 for restoration of the suit and the same was allowed on 04- 12-2006 on condition that the revision petitioner should file affidavits of his witnesses by 21-12-2006 or else the interlocutory application would stand dismissed. The petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order and therefore the suit was again dismissed by the order dated 21-12-2006. Undeterred the plaintiff again filed I.A.No.684 of 2007 for setting aside the second order dismissing the suit and seeking its restoration. The Court below rejected the interlocutory application stating that the petitioner-plaintiff had failed to comply with the conditional order and took no steps to file the affidavits of his witnesses; and that no reasonable grounds were urged to justify recall of the dismissal order and restoration of the suit. On a careful consideration of the order impugned herein, this Court finds no error in the order of the Court below rejecting I.A.No. 684 of 2007. Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, the learned counsel for the petitioner herein (plaintiff) however pleads that the petitioner be put on terms and afforded an opportunity to contest the suit on merits. The learned counsel for the respondent Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana does not seriously contest the position that on the defendant being adequately compensated for the avoidable litigative trauma occasioned by the plaintiff’s negligence, the plaintiff be given an opportunity to contest the suit on merits. In the circumstances the revision petition is allowed on condition that the petitioner-plaintiff pays the respondent-defendant an amount ofrs.2,000-00 (Rupees two thousand only) within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and files acknowledgement issued by the respondent-defendant in receipt of such amount before the Court below within a period of one week thereafter and also files the affidavits of the plaintiff’s witnesses. In default of compliance with any of the conditions herein, this revision stands dismissed and the order of the Court below impugned in this revision stands confirmed. The revision petition is disposed of as above after hearing the counsel for the respective parties. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 05-02-2010 Nb:- Furnish c.c. in three days. b/o pvks