HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3825 OF 2009 Dated 25th August, 2009 Between: Sri Jesta Seetha Ramulu. ….Petitioner. And: 1. Sri Jonnalagadda Ramachandram and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3825 OF 2009 ORDER: This C.R.P. is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 8th July, 2009 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur in I.A.No.911 of 2009 in O.S.No.88 of 2001. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff and 1st respondent herein is the 4th defendant and respondents 2 to 4 herein are the defendants 1 to 3. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Court below for the sake of convenience. Originally, the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S. No.88 of 2001 before the Court below seeking declaration of his right to continue poultry business. On 25-02-2009 since there was no representation on behalf of the 4th defendant, he was set exparte and later the evidence of the plaintiff was closed and the suit was coming for defendants’ side evidence. At that stage, the 4th defendant came up with the application in I.A.No.911 of 2009 seeking to set aside the exparte order dated 25-05-2009. The Court below having observed that the reasons assigned by the 4th defendant can be accepted in the circumstances and since the matter is still pending and coming for the evidence on the defendants’ side, if an opportunity is afforded to the 4th defendant, the matter would be decided on merits, allowed the said application on payment of costs of Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred only) to the plaintiff and Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred only) to the defendants 1 to 3 by 13th July, 2009 or else the application shall stand dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff. Heard the learned counsel. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the suit is of the year 2001. Apart from that, the evidence on plaintiff’s side was over. At this juncture, the 4th defendant has come with the present application before the Court below seeking to set aside the exparte order dated 25-05-2009. But the Court below has allowed his claim which is not justified. It is further contended that the rights of the 4th defendant will not be prejudiced if he has not participated in the trial of the suit and hence, the order impugned is not justified and thereby, the same is liable to be set aside by allowing the revision petition. I have perused the material available on record. The reasons assigned by the 4th defendant before the Court below is that due to lack of information from his earlier counsel, he could not attend the Court on that particular day and therefore, he should not suffer from the latches on the part of the learned counsel. Giving an opportunity to the 4th defendant to prove his case will not prejudice to the rights of both parties. Apart from that, a lis has to be decided on its own merits but not on mere technicalities in order to have an effective adjudication of the issue involved and also to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings of this nature. In this view of the matter, the reasons assigned by the 4th defendant can be accepted in the circumstances as rightly observed by the Court below. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned in this revision and as such, the C.R.P is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 25th August, 2009. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3825 OF 2009 Dated 25th August, 2009.