HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3671 OF 2009 Thursday, the thirteenth Day of August, Two Thousand and Nine Between Adidam Venkateswara Rao Petitioner AND Smt. M.V. Ratnam Respondent THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 3761 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 06.02.2009 passed by the learned II Addl. Rent Controller- cum-XIV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A. No. 207 of 2007 in O.S. No. 216 of 2007 allowing the petition filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC setting aside the order dated 30.10.2007 and restoring the suit, on payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the petitioner herein and on further condition of getting ready for the trial of the suit. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the above suit and the respondent is plaintiff, before the court below. It is case of the plaintiff that her counsel before the court below has noted down the date of hearing as 12.11.2007 instead of 30.10.2007, on which date the suit was dismissed for default. While it is the case of the defendant that even the conditional order had not been complied with and without getting the conditional order extended, the above petition for restoration of the suit ought not to have been ordered. The court below, with a view to decide the case on merits, afforded an opportunity and allowed the petition, as stated supra. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred this Civil Revision Petition. As can be seen from the impugned order, it is the mistaken noting of the next date of hearing by the counsel for the respondent herein before the court below. As such, the court below, with a view to decide the lis on merits, in my considered view, has rightly afforded an opportunity to the respondent herein, on payment of costs. Having gone through the entire material available on record, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in the impugned order. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari August 13, 2009 MAS