THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4430 OF 2010 DATED: 07-02-2011 Between: Adapa Koti Reddy. .... PETITIONER And Dinasarapu Krishna Reddy. .... RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 03.09.2010, in I.A.No.51 of 2009 in O.S.No.257 of 2003 on the file of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein-defendant for setting aside the ex parte order, was allowed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. Originally one G.Bhadra Reddy filed the suit O.S.No.257 of 2003 for permanent injunction. Subsequently, the said G.Bhadra Reddy died and his son-in-law-Adapa Kotireddy-petitioner herein was brought on record as legal representative. The plaint was accordingly amended. The defendant was given opportunity to file additional written statement. The defendant did not however avail the same in spite of several adjournments. As such, the right of the defendant to file additional written statement was forfeited. Thereafter, when the matter was coming up for framing issues, as seen from the impugned order, the trial Court was carried away with the impression that the defendant was set ex parte. Accordingly, ex parte decree was passed. Subsequently, defendant filed an application I.A.No.51 of 2010 for setting aside the ex parte decree. The trial Court allowed the said application on the settled principle of law that no party should suffer for the mistake of the Court. The trial Court has recorded in the impugned order that passing of the ex parte decree on 28-10-2009 is purely a mistake of fact. The impugned order also shows that the ex parte decree was passed under the impression that the defendant was set ex parte, though, in fact, he was not, and only his right to file additional written statement was forfeited. Under those circumstances, when the trial Court realized its mistake and therefore sought to get the record straight and for that purpose set aside the ex parte decree, it is held that no interference is called for with the said order. As rightly observed, no party should suffer for the mistake of the Court. However, having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year, 2001, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above direction. Interim order passed on 01-10-2010 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th February, 2011. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within three days. B/o Tsy