IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2272 of 2011 BETWEEN Dr. Sunil Sam David and another. ... PETITIONERS AND R. Johnson and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. T.V. RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR. J. VENKATESHWAR REDDY The Court made the following order: ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No.872 of 2001 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2011 passed in I.A.No.3338 of 2003. 2. Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit, filed for perpetual injunction, which was decreed ex parte by judgment and decree dated 10.04.2003. The respondents herein filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree and as the same was not within the period of limitation, they have filed I.A.No.3338 of 2003 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 199 days in seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. The said application was allowed by the impugned order by recording the finding to the following effect: “…it seems that the respondents/plaintiffs have no objection to allow the present petition…” 3. Heard both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as there were no sufficient reasons shown in the affidavit filed to condone the delay, the petitioners filed counter affidavit contesting the aforesaid interlocutory application. It is stated that though the counsel on record did not report no objection to allow the application, the trial Court, without any basis, has recorded the aforesaid finding, as if their counsel has reported no objection to allow the application. It is also stated that the advocate, who appeared before the trial Court for the plaintiffs/petitioners, had filed a detailed affidavit before this court in support of the said plea. 5. On the other hand, Sri J. Venkateshwara Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that there are sufficient reasons to condone the delay in view of the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application before the Court below and further submits that there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. 6. On a perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it is evident that the trial Court did not go into the merits of the application and merely condoned the delay on the ground that the counsel for the plaintiffs had reported no objection to allow the said application. As the petitioners are seriously disputing the said statement recorded in the impugned order and moreover, as the advocate appearing for the petitioners before the Court below has filed an affidavit before this Court refuting the said statement, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate that it is a fit case to be remitted back for fresh consideration by the trial Court. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.02.2011 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to consider the matter afresh on merits and pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties. With the above directions, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J August 8, 2011 DSK