IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.388 of 2010 Between: Challa Ramakrishna Reddy ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Pulusu Peri Reddy .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.388 of 2010 ORDER: (per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) This appeal is directed against an order dated 19.10.2009 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, dismissing I.A.No.281 of 2009 in O.S.No.182 of 2007 filed under Order IX Rule 13 and Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree dated 21.08.2009. Heard Sri N.Raghuveer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. As can be seen from the impugned order the Court below observed that from 07.07.2008 the Suit was coming up for the presence of petitioner and the same was adjourned to 28.01.2009 subject to payment of costs and even on 28.01.2009 there was no representation for the petitioner and the case was kept aside till 4.30 p.m. It is also observed that though the petitioner is said to be unwell, he was not an inpatient, case sheet was not produced, no medical prescriptions have been filed. It is further observed that for about five months the case was adjourned from time to time, but the moment ex parte decree was passed, the petitioner filed the present application contending that he suffered from typhoid between 20.12.2008 and 25.02.2009 along with a medical certificate to that effect. The Court below disbelieved the said contention on the ground that the petitioner failed to examine the doctor who issued the said medical certificate. The Suit is of the year 2007 and it is a Suit for recovery of money. Though the defendant was not diligent in prosecuting the matter it is always the requirement of law that adjudication be made on merits instead of ex parte. As already held by this Court, rules are not framed to allow a decision taken in unilateral proceedings to become final or walk away with such proceedings. It is always desirable to have a decision become final in bilateral proceedings. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order by directing the Court below to dispose of the Suit on merits. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The order dated 19.10.2009 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, in I.A.No.281 of 2009 in O.S.No.182 of 2007 is set aside and consequently the suit is restored to file. The Court below is directed to dispose of the Suit as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six months from today positively. It is made clear that the defendant should be diligent in prosecuting the matter. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. _________________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 27th September 2010 CVRK