THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P.No.4194 of 2009 ORDER This civil revision petition is directed against the docket order dated 28-08-2009 passed in O.S.No.2540 of 2008 by the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Revision petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property i.e., Shop No.8-3-903/3/A3 and he let out the premises to the defendant and the tenancy is extended from month to month as per Clause 10 of rental agreement and that he is paying an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. Subsequently, the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the schedule premises for his personal occupation for which the defendant refused and hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 9.11.2008, but the defendant failed to receive the same. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction and for arrears of rent. While so, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.537 of 2009 for arrears of rent and the same was allowed. Subsequent thereto, in view of non-compliance of the said order, the Court below passed the docket order dated 28.8.2009 striking off the defence of the defendant. Questioning the said order, the present civil revision petition has been preferred by the defendant. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-defendant is that the Court below ought to have given an opportunity to comply with the ex parte order. He further contends that the defendant failed to attend the Court when the ex parte order was passed due to serious illness of his father. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contends that the orders under revision need no interference. Heard the learned counsel on either side. A perusal of the record goes to show that the Court below vide its order dated 17th July, 2009 passed the order in I.A.537 of 2009 and directed the defendant to deposit arrears of rent and an amount of Rs.10.000/- towards monthly rent, failing which the defence of the defendant is liable to be struck off. Subsequent thereto, the Court below on 28th August, 2009 passed the docket order to the effect that in view of non-compliance of the order in I.A.No. 537/09, the defence is struck off. Admittedly, the defendant did not comply with the order of the Court below. In this regard, the reason assigned by the defendant is that his father was seriously ill and therefore, he could not comply with the orders of the Court below. He is not unwilling to comply with the orders of the Court below, but he seeks to afford an opportunity to comply with the ex parte order. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to give one more opportunity to the defendant and in view of the orders in CRP No.4193 of 2009, the civil revision petition deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. _______________________ (Justice T.Meena Kumari) rkk Dated 5.11.2009