THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.857 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 30.03.2009, passed in I.A.No.526 of 2008 in O.S.No.765 of 2003, on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder the application filed by the respondent/defendant No.3 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short, ‘C.P.C.”) seeking restoration of the suit, was allowed on payment of costs of Rs.500/-. Petitioners are the plaintiffs and respondent is defendant No.3 in the suit. The said suit was filed seeking eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, initially, the suit was decreed ex parte against the defendants on 26.03.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed I.A.Nos.531 and 532 of 2007, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree dated 26.03.2007, and the same were allowed. Thereafter, for the second time, when the defendants were again called absent, the suit was decreed ex parte against them on 17.04.2008. Thereupon, defendant No.3 – respondent filed the present I.A.No.526 of 2008, under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 17.04.2008, and the Court below, allowed the said application on 30.03.2009, on payment of costs of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed C.M.A.No.21 of 2009 before the learned V Additional District Judge, Nellore, and however, the same was dismissed as not maintainable, on 23.10.2009. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice that defendant No.3 – respondent along with other defendants was set ex parte, on 17.04.2008, and immediately within one month, defendant No.3 – respondent filed the present application, under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., and the same was allowed on 30.03.2009, on payment of costs of Rs.500/-. Thus, I am of the opinion that there is no delay in filing the present I.A. under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., and the trial Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case and to give one more opportunity to the respondent – defendant No.3, by the impugned order dated 30.03.2009, allowed the application, on payment of costs of Rs.500/-, and this discretionary order passed by the trial Court needs no interference in a civil revision petition like this, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and hence, the civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that if defendant No.3 is set ex parte or any ex parte decree is passed against him in future, no application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. shall be entertained. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 17.03.2010 v v