IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No.1839 OF 2010 Date:01-03-2011 Between:- B.Mallesh ..Revision Petitioner/Defendant And T.Mallesh .. Respondent/plaintiff ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C’) is directed against the order dated 23-02-2010 in I.A.No.64 of 2010 in O.S.No.4401 of 2009 on the file of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Order XXXVII Rule 7 C.P.C. to set aside the decree dated 19-01-2010 was dismissed. 2. It is the case of petitioner/defendant that the suit was filed by respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.34,500/-. The petitioner has made his appearance on 29-12-2009. Subsequently, the matter was posted to 19-01-2010. He entrusted the vakalat to his Advocate. He came to know that the suit is filed under Order XXXVII Rule 2 C.P.C. and as his counsel was out of station, and due to lack of legal knowledge, he was unable to move petition for leave to defend the suit on that day and subsequently, the suit was decreed. Hence, the petition. 3. The same was resisted by respondent by filing a counter that the petitioner failed to make an application within ten days from the service of summons along with plaint and annexures for leave to defend the suit and the petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with Sub Rule (3) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII C.P.C. and there was no chance for the plaintiff to serve on the defendant the summons for judgment, as required under Form No.4-A of Appendix B. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that due to lack of legal knowledge, the petitioner could not obtain leave and that the plaintiff can as well serve the summons on the defendant in the suit and therefore, he prays to set aside the same. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that unless a leave to defend the case is obtained, the petitioner cannot be permitted to file the written statement and such permission has not been taken and therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 6. Rule 7 of Order XXXVII C.P.C. states that the Court or Judge may, for sufficient cause shown by the defendant, excuse the delay of the defendant in entering an appearance or in applying for leave to defend the suit. It is not disputed before this Court that after receipt of the summons, the petitioner made appearance on 29-12-2009. Later the matter has been posted to 19-01-2010. In the meanwhile, he did not file any application for leave to defend the suit. Though he stated that he has no knowledge about filing of petition for leave to defend, he engaged an advocate to defend the case. Even the advocate has not filed any petition to grant leave to the petitioner to defend his case. He has not given any proper explanation for his absence on 19-01-2010 on which date the decree was passed. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 1st March, 2011 AMD