THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.843 OF 2003 DATED:21.04.2011 Between: K.Padmaja & 2 others. .... PETITIONERS And G.Mallikarjuna Rao & 6 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 30.09.2002, in I.A.S.R.No.5380 of 2002 in O.S.No.171 of 2000 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order IX Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex parte order, dated 28.07.2000, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed the suit against the firm and its partners. It is stated that the defendants were set ex parte and the application in I.A.No.2345 of 2000 was filed for setting aside the ex parte order, dated 28.07.2000, and the same was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.200/-. According to the petitioners, they were under a bona fide impression that costs of Rs.400/- was payable by all the defendants together and the same was accordingly paid and subsequently they noticed that the costs of Rs.200/- was payable by each of them. Meanwhile, I.A.No.2345 of 2000 was dismissed insofar as the petitioners are concerned on the ground that they have not complied with the order of the Court and not paid the costs, as directed. Petitioners therefore filed the present application-I.A.S.R.No.5380 of 2002 for setting aside the ex parte order on the ground that they could not pay the costs earlier under bona fide impression that costs was payable by all the defendants together, but not individually. The said application was dismissed at the S.R. stage on the ground that it is not maintainable as the order passed in the earlier application-I.A.No.2345 of 2000, dismissing the same as against the petitioners, has become final. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners ought to have filed an application for extension of time for complying with the order of the Court in I.A.No.2345 of 2000 and for payment of costs instead of filing a fresh application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC. It is further submitted that the petitioner-defendant proposed to file a memo, adopting the written statement already filed by the other defendants. 5. In the circumstances, it is considered that opportunity can be given to the petitioners to file an appropriate application for extension of time to comply with the orders of the Court in I.A.No.2345 of 2000 and on such application being filed, the trial Court would dispose of the same on its own merits. 6. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the liberty as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 21st April, 2011. Tsy