THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2183 of 2010 Dated: 29-7-2010 Oral order: This revision is directed against the order of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole dated 8-3-2010 rejecting I.A.No 119 of 2010 in O.S.No. 889 of 2005. The respondent filed the suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the revision petitioners from interfering with his enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On 30-12-2009 the revision petitioners/defendants were not present before the Court for cross- examination of PW1 apparently on account of ill-health of the 1st defendant. The counsel for the defendants was also not present in the Court. Hence he was set ex parte and the suit posted to 25-1-2010 for marking of documents for passing an ex parte decree. On 25-1-2010 the defendants filed I.A.No. 119 of 2010 under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex parte order dated 30-12-2009 and to permit them to participate in the lis. This application was rejected by the trial court by the order impugned stating that in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 119 of 2010 the revision petitioners/defendants did not set out any reasonable grounds for exercising jurisdiction under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. According to the pleadings in I.A.No. 19 of 2010 the 1st defendant was indisposed and the counsel engaged in another court. The court below rejected this reason holding that it is not a sufficient ground particularly since no reasons are offered for the absence of the 1st defendant and after holding that the pre-occupation of the counsel is not a ground on which an ex parte order could be recalled. Though substantially the order of the lower court warrants no interference, Sri N.Vidya Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that on terms the defendants may be permitted to participate in the suit on merits. In the circumstances, after hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioners Sri Vidya Prasad and Sri Venkateshwarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, this court is inclined to allow the revision on condition that the revision petitioners/defendants pay to the respondent/plaintiff Rs.500/- by way of account payee demand draft drawn on a nationanalised bank, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the revision petitioners/defendants furnish before the court below acknowledgement from the respondent/plaintiff as to such payment having been made. On such payment, the revision stands allowed, the order dated 8-3-2010 in I.A.No. 119 of 2010 in O.S.No. 889 of 2005 stands invalidated and I.A.No. 119 of 2010 allowed. In default of payment by the revision petitioners/defendants as stipulated herein, this revision stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 29th July, 2010. GRR