IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH (14TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.1675 of 2011 Between: Jetti Issac … Petitioner And: Mukkamala Krishna Prakash … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.1675 of 2011 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 04.03.2011 in ATA No.9 of 2010 on the file of the Special Judge, Tenancy Appellate Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Guntur, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed confirming the order dated 19.07.2010 in ATC No.10 of 2007 on the file of the Tenancy Special Officer (Principal Junior Civil Judge), Tenali. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed application in ATC No.10 of 2007 against the respondents under sections 15 and 16 of the A.P. Tenancy Act, 1956 for declaration that he is a statutory tenant of the petition schedule land and for grant of injunction. The respondent herein filed counter, opposing the said application. 4. During enquiry before the Special Officer, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.R.1 was marked on behalf of the respondents. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Special Officer, held that the petitioner failed to establish that he is the cultivating tenant of the schedule land and therefore, he is not entitled for declaration and injunction as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed in ATA No.9 of 2010. By impugned judgment, the learned Special Judge under Tenancy Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming order of the Special Officer. 6. As seen from the impugned judgment, the notices in the appeal is ordered to the respondents, fixing the date of appearance and the notices by registered post were returned with endorsement ‘as left’ and the notices through Court was returned ‘un-served’. Thereafter, the Court ordered fresh notices to the respondents to the correct address and posted the matter to 18.11.2010, but the process fee was not paid. When the matter was again posted to 01.12.2010, on that day also, there was no representation on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, the learned District Judge adjourned the matter for hearing since the appeal cannot be dismissed for default and then proceeded to dispose of the matter on merits. However, as can be seen from the impugned judgment, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant or the respondents and the appellate Court observed that in view of the chaotic situation, the Appellate Tribunal heard the appeal even without giving an opportunity and denying opportunity to the respondents to put forth their case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time, the advocates were boycotting the courts and therefore, they could not attend the Court to make a representation and in that way, the appeal came to be disposed of without hearing the arguments of either side. In the circumstances, as the appeal is said to have been disposed of without giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides and that now there is appearance on behalf of both parties, it is considered just and proper that an opportunity of hearing is to be afforded to both sides before the appeal is disposed of on merits. In that view of the matter, it is considered just and proper to remit the matter to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh disposal according to law after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides. 8. Having regard to the fact that ATC is of the year 2007, the Appellate Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal at an early date, preferably, within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and both parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Tribunal within two weeks from today i.e., on or before 28.12.2011. The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh disposal according to law. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 14.12.2011 Note: Issue CC in three days (BO) bss