HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.348 of 2009 Date: July 28, 2011 Between: Ch. Shankar Goud … Petitioner And 1. Tummalapally Bichappa & another … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.348 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner is the second defendant in O.S. No.235 of 2005 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy. He was set ex parte by order of the trial Court dated 08.3.2006. Claiming ignorance of the same, he filed I.A. No.1325 of 2008 in the said suit under the provisions of Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte order and permit him to participate in the proceedings of the suit. By order dated 19.01.2009, the trial Court dismissed the said application. Hence, this revision. 2. Notice before admission was ordered by this Court on 24.02.2009 and the learned counsel for the petitioner was also permitted to take out personal notice by registered post with acknowledgement due. On 19.3.2009 this Court, taking note of the fact that the notice sent to the first respondent/plaintiff was returned with the endorsement ‘house number wanted, hence returned’ and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the address mentioned on the notice was the same as furnished in the plaint, opined that there was no reason to await service of notice or issue notice afresh in the matter and accordingly granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the suit. 3. Though the aforestated order of stay was passed as long back as on 19.3.2009, neither the first respondent/plaintiff nor the second respondent/first defendant chose to enter appearance in person or through counsel before this Court. 4. Heard Sri V. Ramachander Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The order under revision reflects that the trial Court was of the opinion that the petitioner failed to make out good and sufficient cause for setting aside the order dated 08.4.2006 setting him ex parte. The trial Court came to this conclusion on the ground that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings in the suit and had also participated in the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses. The trial Court however failed to notice that it was not the case of the petitioner that he did not do so. His case was that he was unaware of the fact that his counsel had not filed a vakalat on his behalf and had failed to file his written statement. The very fact that the petitioner got a vakalat filed through another counsel upon the death of his former counsel, after the passing of the order dated 08.3.2006 setting him ex parte, clearly supports his claim of ignorance in this regard. The mere fact that he participated in the suit proceedings does not in any manner detract from his claim of ignorance as to the failure of his former counsel in filing a vakalat along with his written statement. This ignorance was furthered by the fact that the trial Court permitted him to participate in the proceedings, including the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses. 6. It is relevant to note that the suit was for specific performance of an agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by the petitioner along with his brother, the second respondent/first defendant. The valuable property rights of the petitioner were therefore in issue and in such view of the matter, the trial Court ought not to have adopted a hyper technical approach in dealing with his application to set aside the order setting him ex parte. The finding of the trial Court that the petitioner failed to establish good and sufficient cause cannot be sustained in the light of the aforestated facts. The order dated 19.01.2009 passed by the trial Court in I.A. No.1325 of 2008 in O.S. No.235 of 2005 is accordingly set aside. 7. The civil revision petition is allowed nullifying the order dated 08.3.2006, whereby the trial Court set the petitioner/second defendant ex parte in the suit. The trial Court shall permit the petitioner to participate in the suit proceedings by filing his written statement and dispose of the suit expeditiously. No order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: July 28, 2011. BSB