HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 561 of 2009 Date: 16-12-2010 Between: Chukka Sannibabu …. Petitioner and Barla Apparao and others …… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 561 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein, who is the defendant, filed this Revision Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C., inter alia, seeking to assail the dismissal order, dated 07-11-2008 in C.M.A.No.11 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, confirming the dismissal order, dated 15-11-2003 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram in I.A.No.319 of 1998 filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. seeking to set aside the ex parte decree in O.S.No.60 of 1996, which has been filed by the first respondent for specific performance of the suit agreement. In the said application, without making any appearance and also without there being any written statement, the petitioner was set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed on 27-03-1997. The petitioner has filed the said application along an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay in filing the application as well. The trial Court has allowed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay in filing the application. But, insofar as the present application is concerned, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court did not find favour with the reasons given in support of the application and dismissed the application. Hence, the Revision. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the material, it is seen that vitally the affidavit and the reasons contained in both the applications for condonation of the delay and for setting aside the ex parte decree were on the same lines. Having given such opportunity of condonation of delay, the Courts below should have given opportunity to the petitioner for contesting the matter on merits rather than denying the same. More so, when the suit itself is one for specific performance affecting the substantive rights of the parties, the opportunity should have been given to both the parties. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order in C.M.A.No.11 of 2005 and the order in I.A.No.319 of 1998 are set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.319 of 1998 stands allowed. The petitioner shall file the written statement within a period of six weeks from today. The lower Court is directed to take up the main suit and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 16-12-2010 YCR