IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4871 of 2009 Between: Diddi Jogi Raju. … Petitioner And Chelamkuri Subba Rao and another. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4871 OF 2009 ORDER:- Plaintiff filed this revision against the orders of the Junior Civil Judge, Pattipadu in dismissing I.A.No.406 of 2008 in O.S.No.96 of 2004 dated 18.08.2009 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 155 days in filing the petition for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed for default on 06.11.2007. The above suit was filed for recovery of the amount based on a promissory note with subsequent interest and the same posted for trial on 06.11.2007. Since the petitioner was not present on the said date, the suit was dismissed for default. Hence he filed I.A. under Order IX Rule 9 of the C.P.C. with I.A.No.406 of 2008 for condoning the delay contending that due to Jaundice he went to Badhrachalam agency area where he has took the treatment and was held up there for six months and, therefore, the delay was caused in filing the petition for restoration. The lower court dismissed the same on the ground that issues were settled on 27.03.2006. Since the case same was adjourned time to time and since the plaintiff was not ready on 06.11.2007 to commence the trial in spite of passing the order on 09.06.2007, 18.09.2007 for adjourning the case he was not ready. Further though the suit was dismissed on 06.11.2007, the restoration petition was filed on 09.05.2008 no reasons were assigned, only the specific dates when he went to Badrachalam and when he returned. Since the petitioner appears to be a tribe from the name, he cannot be expected to know the dates and consequences of his non-appearance in the suit and hence he should be given an opportunity to contest the suit on merits. In view of the same, on petitioner paying a sum of Rs.500/- to Smt.V.Sesha Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent, which is paid by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the I.A. filed for condoning the delay petition is allowed. Consequently, the I.A. filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC is allowed restoring the suit to its file subject to petitioner filing affidavit in lieu of chief examination on or before 08.02.2010 before the trial court and make himself available on the said date for cross-examination. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 22nd January 2010 LMV