HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY C.M.A.No. 331 of 2002 J U D G M E N T: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 19.12.2001 passed in I.A.No. 150 of 2001 in O.S.No. 137 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Narayanpet, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the Application filed by the defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. The respondents are plaintiffs and the appellants are defendants in O.S. No. 137 of 1997. The appellants-defendants entered appearance in the suit through a counsel and sought time for filing written statement. The trial Court granted time to the appellants- defendants on various dates for filing written statement. On 05.10.1998, neither the appellants-defendants appeared nor they filed the written statement and consequently, an ex parte order came to be passed against them. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 12.10.1998, 16.10.1998 and 13.11.1998. On 13.11.1998, the plaintiffs examined P.W.1 and the matter was adjourned to 19.11.1998, for consideration. Again, the matter was posted to 30.11.1998, on which date th e ex parte decree came to be passed. The appellants- defendants filed an Application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree. They also filed I.A.No. 259 of 1999 to condone delay of 21 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. Delay condonation application ended in dismissal on 21.11.2000. The appellants-defendants filed C.R.P. No. 129 of 2001 assailing the order passed in I.A.No. 259 of 1999. The Civil Revision Petition came to be allowed condoning the delay of 21 days in filing the Petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C, by order dated 09.07.2001. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder: “ No doubt the petitioners in their affidavit stated that they could not hand over the documents, which are necessary for preparation of the written statement and at the time when they handed over the said documents to the advocate, they came to know that ex parte decree was passed and immediately they have filed the application under Order IX Rule13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 21 days caused in filing the set aside petition. When the suit itself is for partition and the delay is only 21 days, the Lower Court should have condoned the same on payment of certain costs. Admittedly, the petitioners appeared before the Court for the first time on 04.03.1998 and the suit was decreed on 30.11.1998. In that view of the matter, the application filed by the petitioners for condoning the delay of 21 days have to be allowed on payment of costs. In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The delay of 21 days is condoned on payment of costs Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to the respondents-plaintiffs or to the counsel appearing on behalf of them within three weeks from today. I.A. No. 259 of 1999 allowed. The lower Court is directed to take up the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte.” Consequent to the order passed in the Civil Revision Petition, the trial Court entertained the Application filed by the appellants- defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. The respondents-plaintiffs filed counter resisting the Application. The trial Court dismissed the Application on the ground that the appellants-defendants failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for not filing written statement on 18.01.1999. The order of dismissal of the Application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is under challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. When this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants and perused the order impugned in the appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants submits that the appellants-defendants offered sufficient reason for not filing the written statement on 18.01.1999 and that the trial Court has missed to note the reason assigned by them and thereby, erred in dismissing the Application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. Indisputably, the appellants-defendants filed written statement on 17.11.2000 i.e. pending the Application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. The reason for not filing the written statement on 18.01.1999 has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Petition. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, on certain terms. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, setting aside the order, dated 19.12.2001 passed in I.A.No. 150 of 2001 in O.S.No. 137 of 1997, subject to the appellants depositing suit costs within four weeks. Consequent on compliance of condition of deposit of costs, I.A.No. 150 of 2001 shall stand allowed. No costs. ------------------------------------ (B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 28th October 2009 ksld