HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2584 OF 2011 DATE:19-08-2011 BETWEEN M/s.B.N.Rathi Securities Ltd., A Company regd. Under Indian Companies Act, Having its Corporate office at # 6-3-652, 4th floor, “Kautilya” Amrutha Estates, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director Hari Narayan Rathi …Petitioner AND Ramesh Nelakuditi …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2584 OF 2011 ORDER: Petitioner-plaintiff filed this revision to revise the orders of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dated 11.3.2011 dismissing I.A.No.1246 of 2010 in unnumbered O.S. of 2010 filed to condone the delay of 427 days in re-presenting the plaint. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amounts due in the transaction of trading in equity shares conducted by it on behalf of the respondent-defendant as per the agreement, dated 8.2.2008. The said suit was filed before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The plaint was returned for being presented in the proper Court within ten days. However, the plaint was presented before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada with a delay of 427 days and therefore, the impugned I.A. is filed to condone the said delay in re-presenting the plaint contending that the advocate for the petitioner-company received the suit, who in turn handed it over to the deponent, who has not filed the same in proper Court within the stipulated time and that the record was mixed with other claim records of the petitioner’s company and therefore, there is delay. On dismissal of the impugned I.A. by the lower Court on contest, the present revision is filed. Admittedly, the petitioner can file a fresh suit within the time, as the suit is not barred by limitation. Once the suit claim is not barred by limitation, the lower Court ought not to have dismissed the impugned I.A. filed for condoning the delay in re- representing the plaint. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that even the Court at Vijayawada has not jurisdiction to try the suit and that the petitioner failed to present the suit within ten days from the date of its return by the Court of City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Considering the circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.1246 of 2010 stands allowed condoning the delay in-representing the plaint on condition that in the event of petitioner’s suit is decreed, it shall forego the interest on the suit claim for the period of 427 days. It is always open for the respondent-defendant to contest the suit taking all the pleas available including the point of jurisdiction of the Court at Vijayawada to entertain the suit. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. AUGUST 19, 2011 Tsr.