IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3398 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Smt Hameeda Sheik …PETITIONER AND P.Jaya Lakshmi …RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3398 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is filed against the order in E.A.No.20 of 2010 in E.A.No.7 of 2008 in E.P.No.8 of 2008 in O.S.No.45 of 2007 on the file of Additional Rent Controller at Secunderabad, dismissing the E.A. for want of notice. 2. The suit was one filed for eviction and the said suit was decreed on 04-02-2008 against the revision petitioner after the death of her father. In execution of the decree, E.P.No.8 of 2008 was filed for delivery of possession of the property. In that, E.A.No.7 of 2008 was filed to stay the proceedings in execution petition and another application for setting aside the exparte decree was said to have been filed and pending. E.A.No.7 of 2008 was dismissed and for restoration of that E.A.No.20 of 2010 was filed. Since no notice was given, the E.A.No.20 of 2010 was also dismissed. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision is filed. 3. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller at Secunderabad, is legal and sustainable? 4. According to the counsel for the revision petitioner, notice was offered to the counsel for the decree holder and also the party present, but it was not taken; the dismissal of the application by the lower Court without ordering notice through Court is bad. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent represents that the revision petitioner has adopted delaying tactics and there was no refusal of the notice by the counsel for the decree holder. Whatever may be the reasons, which are mentioned herein, the counsel for the decree holder represents that if notice is given in the lower Court, the counsel will be prepared to take the notice and proceed with the disposal of the application. 5. Therefore, the revision is allowed and irrespective of the applications of the refusal of notice earlier made by the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to take fresh notice personally to the decree holder and their counsel in the lower Court, within two weeks and thereafter, the lower Court shall dispose of the matter within four weeks. It is needless to say that if the revision petitioner has not complied with the directions of this Court while obtaining the stay of further proceedings, the decree holder will be at liberty to proceed according to law. 6. Accordingly, the revision is ordered. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date: 04-03-2011. Note: Issue C.C. by three (03) days. (B/o.) INL