THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 617 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed questioning the order dated 14-02-2011 in I.A.No. 9 of 2011 in O.S.No. 48 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili (for short, 'the Court below'), whereby the Court below dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 1. 2. The petitioner filed I.A.No. 9 of 2011 under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.') to set aside the ex parte order dated 04-10-2010 alleging that he had to attend the Court below on the above said date and file his written statement; that as his counsel was preoccupied and required more information to prepare written statement, the same could not be filed and that on the date of adjournment, neither himself nor his counsel were present and therefore the Court below set the petitioner ex parte. Respondent No. 1-the plaintiff filed counter affidavit denying material allegations inter alia contending that there were no bona fides in the petition to set aside the ex parte order and that the ground urged in the petition is not sufficient to set aside the same. 3. Upon hearing argument of both counsel, the Court below dismissed the petition, passing the following order: "The petitioner has relied upon the proviso OR. 9 R.7 Civil Procedure Code which speaks "if a party remained absent in the previous adjournment, he has to attend the court, and explain the reason for his absence and if the court considers the grounds are bonafides the petition can be allowed and permit the party to proceed with the suit on the next adjournment." The proviso is specific that the erring party has to move the petition on or before the next adjournment. 2 This petition and other defendant were set exparte on 4-10-2010 and suit was posted to 10-11-2010 for plaintiff's evidence on that day the plaintiff was not ready and again posted to 1-12-2010 for plaintiff's evidence on that day the plaintiff was not ready and again posted to 1-12-2010. If it is so the petitioner has to move the petition on or before 10-11-2010. The present petition is filed on 19-1-2011 beyond the stipulated time. No bonafides. Hence petition is dismissed. In the result, petition is dismissed. No costs." 4. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed contending that the reason assigned by the Court below is ex facie erroneous and prayed to set aside the order passed by the Court below. 5. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds urged in the revision petition and requested to pass appropriate orders. 6. According to Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C., where the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex parte and the defendant, at or before such hearing, appears and assigns good cause for his previous non-appearance, he may, upon such terms as the Court directs as to costs or otherwise, be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance. Thus, from Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C., the petitioner is required to show a good cause not even sufficient cause for his non-appearance on the date of adjournment. The Court below dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner did not make out a good cause and that the petition shall be filed on or before the next date of adjournment. In fact, there is no such proviso to Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. and I am unable to understand from where the Court below borrowed the said proviso mandating that the petitioner has to file such petition on or before the next date of adjournment. When the petitioner explained the reason i.e. good cause for his non-appearance on the date of adjournment, the Court below ought to have allowed the petition on certain terms at least by 3 exercising discretionary power under Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. Therefore, the order of the Court below is illegal and contrary to the provisions of C.P.C. Consequently, the same is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. I.A.No. 9 of 2011 is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to respondent No. 1-plaintiff within two months from today and in the event of failure to pay the costs, the order shall automatically stand vacated. In case respondent No. 1-plaintiff refuses to receive the costs, the petitioner is permitted to deposit the same to the credit of the suit. 7. Subject to the above, the civil revision petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this civil revision petition shall stand closed in consequence. _____________________________ Date: 21-02-2018. M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J. JSK