IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.824 OF 2009 Between: Gouda Suryanarayana … Petitioner/Plaintiff AND Thipparthi Raja Mouli … Respondent/Defendant The Court made the following: ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”), is directed against the order and decree, dated 22.08.2008, in I.A.No.845 of 2008 in O.S.No.574 of 2003, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 450 days in filing the petition to restore the suit to its original number by setting aside the orders of dismissal passed on 21.02.2006, was dismissed. 2. The ground mentioned in the Affidavit filed in support of the petition is that the petitioner/plaintiff was suffering with ill-health from 10.12.2006 to 09.05.2007 and the doctor advised him to take bed rest. That version has been contradicted by the respondent/defendant in view of the fact that the absence of the petitioner/plaintiff on 21.12.2006 was stated in the petition filed seeking adjournment that the daughter of the petitioner was admitted in the hospital at Hyderabad and he was attending to her and therefore, he could not come to the Court on 21.12.2006. 3. No doubt, due diligence has been shown by the Court in granting adjournment. A conditional order has been passed on 05.12.2006 with a direction to the petitioner/plaintiff to proceed with the case on 21.12.2006. That condition has not been complied with. Two contradictory stands have been stated by the petitioner/plaintiff for his absence on 21.12.2006. It is not known whether which fact is correct. 4. Therefore, it is a fit case to remand the matter permitting the parties to lead evidence to substantiate the case. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to give due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 5. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 10th December, 2009 KL