THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6933 OF 2005 O R D E R: The revision is filed against the order in I.A.No.802 of 2005 in A.S.No.124 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. 2. The revision petitioners herein are respondents Nos.2 and 3 in Insolvency Petition No. 13 of 1990 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, where-under the alienation in favour of the revision petitioners was challenged as fraudulent one and the petition was filed by the creditor. The vendor of the revision petitioners was added as a 1st respondent. The respondents 2 and 3, who are the revision petitioners herein, did not prefer to contest the insolvency petition and an insolvency was passed on 06.04.1999. Subsequently, the vendor of the revision petitioners, who is the 1st respondent in the insolvency petition, filed A.S.No.124 of 1999 showing the revision petitioners also as respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Then also the respondents did not contest the appeal and remained ex parte. Thereafter, the present application was filed for restoration of the appeal. The learned Principal District Judge dismissed the application finding laches on the part of the revision petitioners. 3. Evidently, the revision petitioners have not chosen to contest in the insolvency proceedings or in the appeal under Order XLI Rule 19 of Civil Procedure Code (for short, ‘CPC’), which has been dismissed for default, can be admitted only at the instance of the appellant. The revision petitioners being the respondents in the appeal have no locus standi to file the application for restoration of the appeal. The claim of the revision petitioners that they were subjected to fraud and made to believe that the matter will be settled, is a matter which they can agitate before the insolvency Court under Section 47 about the maintainability of the insolvency petition or if they are interested they can pay the money to the creditors and seek a discharge of the insolvency. The only option open to them are to abide, otherwise the application being not maintainable by itself. The order of the lower Court does not suffer from any infirmities and call for interference by this Court. 4. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 22-06-2011. INL