THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1229 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order, dated 04-06-2009, passed in I.A.No.1082 of 2007 in O.S.No.96 of 2000 by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, wherein the learned Judge while allowing the application of the petitioners herein to set aside the ex-parte decree, imposed condition to deposit half of the decretal amount, failing which, the said petition stands dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff submits that against the impugned order, the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as it is an appealable order under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-defendants submits that time for filing appeal is over and he was under bonafide impression that the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable. It is not in dispute that against the order passed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC rejecting an application to set aside the dismissal of a suit, an appeal lies under Order 43 Rule 1 (c) of CPC. Similarly, against the order passed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC rejecting an application to set aside a decree passed ex parte, an appeal lies under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) of CPC. In the instant case, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1082 of 2007 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against them. Therefore, it is an appealable order under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) of CPC. A perusal of the material available on record goes to show that the petitioners herein, who are defendants, were set ex-parte and an ex- parte decree was passed on 01-03-2010. Therefore, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1082 of 2007 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against them and the said application was allowed on 04- 06-2009 subject to the condition of the petitioners depositing half of the decretal amount within 15 days, failing which, the petition stands dismissed. Admittedly, the said conditional order was not complied with by depositing half of the decretal amount. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioners stands dismissed by 19-06-2009. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed in the month of February, 2010. The controversy raised in this Civil Revision Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in CH.ANJANEYULU Vs. ALAPATI HARIPRASAD[1], wherein it was held as follows:- “…….. I have no hesitation to hold that the revision is not maintainable as the order passed by the learned Munsif contains default clause and if the condition is not satisfied, the I.A. stands automatically dismissed. Hence, the proper remedy for the petitioner is to file appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC., to the Sub-Court, Narsapur. Counsel for the petitioner M.Bhanu Prasad says that time for filing appeal is over and that his client will be put to hardship. If time is over, the petitioner can file appeal by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act saying that he has been prosecuting the wrong remedy and the lower appellate court will certainly consider such plea. In the circumstances, I hold that the C.R.P. is not maintainable. Office is directed to return the papers to the learned counsel for the petitioner.” Following the aforesaid judgment, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Office is directed to return the papers to the learned counsel for the petitioners so as to enable them to file an appeal before the Court concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 23-07-2010 Prv [1] 1996 (4) ALT 794