IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH (25TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3359 of 2009 Between: M/s Geetanjali Constructions, Hyderabad … Petitioner And: B. Rangaiah & 2 others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3359 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 25.06.2009 in IA No.238 of 2009 in OS No.1478 of 2003 on the file of the XI Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed suit against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 for cancellation of the sale deed and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. The petitioner-first defendant did not file written statement and therefore, he was set ex-parte on 21.01.2004. The petitioner filed IA No.719 of 2006 for setting aside the ex-parte order and the said petition was dismissed. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed CRP No.1774 of 2007 and the same was also dismissed by this Court on 13.04.2007. The defendants 2 and 3 filed written statement and contested the suit. On a conclusion of the trial, the matter reached the stage of arguments. At that stage, the petitioner-first defendant filed IA No.238 of 2009 under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC seeking permission to participate in the suit proceedings from the date of their appearance. 4. According to the petitioner, subsequently on 28.08.2008 a memorandum of understanding was entered into between the parties settling dispute in a comprehensive manner and in pursuance thereof the petitioner handed over possession of a plot in the suit building and the plaintiff issued cheques for Rs.5 lakhs towards difference in the price. The petitioner therefore seeks permission to participate in further proceedings in the suit in view of the subsequent events. But, however he seeks permission for such participation from the date of his appearance. The same was opposed by the first respondent-plaintiff, who filed a counter contending that the petitioner was already set ex-parte and IA No.719 of 2006 filed by him for setting aside the ex-parte order was dismissed and the revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed and therefore, the question of petitioner participating in the proceedings from the date of his appearance does not arise. The learned Senior Civil Judge rejected the request of the petitioner, but however gave an opportunity to advance arguments. 5. The order setting the petitioner ex-parte has reached finality in view of the dismissal of the CRP No.1774 of 2007 on 13.04.2007. The present application is filed again under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC on 22.04.2009. The prayer in the present application is coached in such a way that if granted it virtually amounts to setting aside the ex-parte order, inasmuch as the petitioner seeks permission to participate in the proceedings from the date of their appearance. In view of the orders passed in CRP No.1774 of 2007, the said relief cannot be granted. As rightly observed by the trial Court, notwithstanding the orders of setting the petitioner ex-parte, he can be permitted to participate in the proceedings, but he cannot set the clock back. As the suit has reached the stage of arguments, it is open to the petitioner-D.1 to advance the arguments for which the trial Court also gave him opportunity. The impugned order dismissing the application with liberty to the petitioner to participate in further proceedings i.e., advancing the arguments, does not call for any interference. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 25.08.2011 bss