HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITON No. 2101 OF 2009 DATED 29TH JANUARY, 2010. BETWEEN Kandivalasa Subba Lakshmi and anr ….Petitioners and Polipilli Nagamani and anr …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITON No. 2101 OF 2009 ORDER Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No. 59 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu, ﬁled this Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 24.2.2009 by which I.A.No. 716 of 2008 ﬁled by them under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed. The petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 ﬁled the aforesaid I.A. seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 20.9.2008 to enable them to contest the matter. The ﬁrst respondent/plaintiﬀ ﬁled the aforesaid suit for partition of her 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property and for separate possession. The ﬁrst defendant is the mother of the second defendant and plaintiﬀ. The Third defendant is the fostered daughter. The second defendant is looking after the aﬀairs of the ﬁrst defendant. On their behalf, Advocate ﬁled Vakalat and on behalf of the third defendant separate vakalat was ﬁled. On 3.7.2008 and 28.7.2008, the defendants called absent and at the request of another advocate on their behalf, the matter was adjourned to 12.8.2008 as a last chance for ﬁling written statement. On 12.8.2008, written statement was not ﬁled and at the request of the defendants, the matter was posted to 16.9.2008. On the said date also, written statement was not ﬁled and the matter was adjourned to 29.9.2008, on which date the defendants 1 to 3 were called absent and written statement was not ﬁled. In those circumstances, the defendants 1 to 3 were set at ex parte. To set aside the same, subject I.A. was ﬁled contending that the second defendant who is looking after the case fell sick and could not represent the matter on the aforesaid dates and their absence was neither wilful nor wanton. The lower Court dismissed the application observing that no admissible evidence has been produced to establish that the second defendant was sick and no valid reasons were stated for not representing the matter. It was further observed that they were silent for more than two months and therefore, they did not deserve any sympathy. Hence, this C.R.P. Heard both sides. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the trial in the suit has not yet commenced and as the written statement has been ﬁled along with the petition to set aside the ex parte order, the lower Court ought to have allowed the subject I.A. on some terms for laches on the part of the petitioners. In view of the fact that the trial in the suit has not yet commenced, it is proper and appropriate to set aside the ex parte order dated 29.9.2008 on some terms enabling the petitioners/defendants to contest the matter on merits. Accordingly, the order dated 24.2.2009 passed in I.A.No. 716 of 2008 in O.S.No. 59 of 2008 is set aside and consequently IA.No. 716 of 2008 stands allowed subject to the petitioners/defendants paying costs of Rs.1000/- to the ﬁrst respondent- plaintiﬀ within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in default the said IA stands dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ---------------------------------------- JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY DATED 29T H JANUARY, 2010. MSNR.