HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3250 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition under Article 227 is directed against the order dated 28/04/2007 of the learned District Judge, Ongole, rejecting C.M.A.No.1 of 2005 preferred by the revision petitioner against the order dated 09/12/2004 in I.A.No.171 of 2002 in O.S.No.22 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.22 of 1989 for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.55,040/- on the basis of a promissory note said to have been executed by the revision petitioner. The suit was decreed ex parte on 27/07/1990. The decree was transferred to Bapatla for execution by way of E.P.No.16 of 2002. At that stage, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.171 of 21002 under Order IX Rule 13 and Section 151 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dated 27/07/1990, roughly about 12 years after the date of the decree. By the order dated 09/12/2004, I.A.No.171 of 2002 was rejected. The trial Court held that on perusal of the docket order of the suit, it is revealed that the suit summons through the Court were affixed on the defendant’s premises as he had apparently proceeded to Hyderabad. The Process Server obtained the neighbours report and returned the summons. On 22/06/1989, the Court ordered fresh summons to the defendant through Court and registered post. The summons issued through the Court were sent to the Ponnur Munsif Magistrate’s Court for causing service on the defendant. The Process Server of the Ponnur Munsif Court made an endorsement on the back of the summons that the defendant had proceeded to Vijayawada and the summons copy was fixed to his house. The Court docket dated 05/02/1990 reveals that the summons sent through the post was returned as ‘refused’. Thereupon, the Court set him ex parte and passed the ex parte decree on 27/07/1990. After considering the evidence of P.W.1 in the suit, the learned trial Court concluded that defendant’s contention that the plaintiff obtained decree against him without his knowledge is false and accordingly rejected I.A.No.171 of 2002 with costs. There against the petitioner preferred C.M.A.No.1 of 2005 which was allowed by an order dated 08/06/2006. The respondent herein thereupon preferred C.R.P.No.4662 of 2006. By the order of this Court dated 19/01/2007, the CRP was allowed in view of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner fairly conceding that the reasons assigned by the appellate Court in setting aside the ex parte order while allowing the CMA could not be sustained. While allowing the revision, this Court remitted the matter to the lower appellate Court to dispose of the appeal (C.M.A.No.1 of 2005) afresh after hearing both the parties and after considering the evidence of R.W.1 (produced before this Court by the petitioner). In his evidence, R.W.1, in cross-examination and while denying the contentions of the defendant on merits, made a stray statement that he had no objection to obtain a decree on merits. This was a statement made during the course of the testimony of the plaintiff as R.W.1 in I.A.No.171 of 2002 in O.S.No.22 of 1989. On remand, C.M.A.No.1 of 2005 was again considered on merits and was dismissed by the order impugned, dated 28/04/2007. The lower appellate Court on a careful and cogent analysis of the material on record did find that the trial Court was right in its reasons and conclusions that adequate opportunity and notice was afforded to the defendant in O.S.No.22 of 1989 and that the decreeing of the suit ex parte was valid and unimpeachable. Smt.Jhansi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would submit that though the revision petitioner/defendant in O.S.No.22 of 1989 was indolent in prosecuting his defence in O.S.No.22 of 1989, he should be afforded another opportunity to contest the suit on merits as there is another suit pending, filed by the revision petitioner against the respondent in O.S.No.136 of 1988 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bapatla, which was decreed in favour of the revision petitioner who filed E.P.No.47 of 1999 for execution of the decree and the adjustment of the respective obligations under the two decrees would also have to be pursued in appropriate proceedings and since the defendant in O.S.No.22 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, (the revision petitioner) is anxious to have a trial on the merits of the suit, despite earlier negligence in prosecuting his case. After hearing the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, Sri M.S.N.Prasad, and the peculiar circumstances of this case, though the petitioner failed to make out any justifiable cause for the interference with the order impugned, this Court considers it appropriate to allow this revision petition on stringent terms in view of the earlier negligent conduct of the revision petitioner in prosecuting his defence in O.S.No.22 of 1989. Accordingly, on condition that the revision petitioner pays the respondent/plaintiff an amount of Rs.5,000/- as costs and Rs.5,000/- to the Secretary, A.P.State Legal Services Authority, within a period of three weeks from today and on producing acknowledgment of such payments from the respondent and from the Secretary, A.P.State Legal Services Authority, before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, (within four weeks from today), this Civil Revision Petition shall stand allowed; the order in C.M.A.No.1 of 21005 shall stand set aside; the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, in I.A.No.171 of 2002 in O.S.No.22 of 1989 shall also stand set aside and I.A.No.171 of 2002 shall stand allowed and consequently, the trial Court shall proceed to hear O.S.No.22 of 1989 on merits and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible. In default of payments by the petitioner as directed herein, this revision petition shall stand dismissed. This Court, while directing notice before admission in this revision, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.16 of 2002 in O.S.No.22 of 1989 (filed by the respondent herein for execution of the decree in the suit) on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the decretal amount + costs in O.S.No.22 of 1089 to the credit of E.P.No.16 of 2002. The amount has been deposited, but after an order of this Court dated 28/09/2009, extending time for payment. It is represented by counsel for the respective parties that the said amount has since been deposited. The amount so deposited may be withdrawn by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.22 of 1989, so however, that the entitlement of the respondent to this amount shall depend on the outcome of O.S.No.22 of 1989. __________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 18th June, 2010 SKM