HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1806 OF 2008 DATE:22-12-2010 BETWEEN Karumuri Udaya Kumar …Petitioner AND Thota Jayaprakash …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1806 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant to revise the orders of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada passed in I.A.No.1663 of 2007 in I.A.No.1715 of 2006 in O.S.No.1583 of 2006 whereby the I.A. filed under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to set aside the default order, dated 23.2.2007 passed in I.A.No.1715 of 2006 and to restore the same to its file has been dismissed. No representation for the petitioner. Though notice before admission was ordered permitting the counsel for the petitioner to take out personal notice to the respondent through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due on 25.4.2008, so far, the petitioner could not take out notice to the respondent. On respondent-plaintiff obtaining an ex parte decree against the petitioner-defendant in O.S.No.1583 of 2006 for recovery of Rs.86,000/- on 1.8.2006, the petitioner-defendant filed I.A.No.1715 of 2006 under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree, which was allowed on 23.1.2007 on condition of petitioner depositing costs of Rs.5,214/- on or before 15.2.2007. However, on 15.2.2007, the petitioner filed an application seeking extension of time, which was allowed granting extension of time till 23.2.2007, but the petitioner did not comply the said order and the matter was adjourned to 26.2.2007 on payment of costs of Rs.100/-. On the said date, the petitioner neither appeared nor paid the costs and hence, I.A.No.1715 of 2006 was dismissed for non-compliance of conditional order. For restoration of the same, the impugned I.A. has been filed. The said I.A. has been dismissed by the Court below holding that the said I.A. is not filed for extension of time for payment of suit costs but it is filed to restore I.A.No.1715 of 2006, which was finally disposed of on 23.1.2007 itself and hence, the restoration of the said I.A. does not arise. The impugned order, so passed by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 22, 2010 Tsr.