HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6084 of 2009 Between : M/s.Nandan Biomatrix Limited, Mudigonda, rep. by its Director. …….Petitioner And T. Sharada & another. …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6084 of 2009 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by defendant No.2 in the suit in O.S.No.64 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal, aggrieved by the order, dated 01.12.2009, passed in I.A.No.538 of 2009. 2. The petitioner herein is defendant No.2 in the suit. The said suit is filed to declare transfer of shares of the petitioner-Company in favour of defendant No.1, as illegal, and to give directions to restore such shares in favour of plaintiff. The petitioner herein was set exparte, by an order, dated 10.04.2006. To set aside the said order, the petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.538 of 2009, which is rejected by the Court below, by the impugned order. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard Sri J.Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.Divakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 4. In this revision petition, it is contended by Sri J.Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, that he has filed I.A.No.538 of 2009 on 09.06.2009, and the 1st respondent did not file any counter affidavit, but the Court below, by impugned order, without recording any valid reasons, rejected the said application. It is submitted by the learned counsel that during the pendency of the application in I.A.No.538 of 2009, the Court below, without passing any orders, proceeded to close the plaintiff’s evidence, and posted the matter for the evidence of defendant No.1. It is submitted that the impugned rejection order is passed mainly on the ground that the said application has come into picture only after DW-1 has entered into the witness box. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent herein, that the application is filed only at the instance of the 1st respondent herein, only to protract the litigation. It is submitted that the Managing Director of the petitioner-Company is related to the 1st respondent herein, and that there is no valid explanation for the abnormal delay in filing the said application. 5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the application is dismissed mainly on the ground that the same has come into picture only after DW-1’s evidence is recorded. But, in the grounds raised in this revision, it is categorically stated that the application is filed much before closure of evidence on plaintiff’s side. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings in I.A.No.538 of 2009, the evidence on plaintiff’s side is closed and DW- 1’s evidence is started. As much as the application was filed by the petitioner on 09.06.2009, and in view of the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, explaining the delay, and also, keeping in mind the nature of relief sought for in the suit, and as much as the written statement is already filed along with the application in I.A.No.538 of 2009, this Court is of the view that it is evidently a fit case to give an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the proceedings, by compensating the 2nd respondent herein, with costs. 6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and the order, dated 1st December 2009, passed in I.A.No.538 and 2009 in O.S.No.64 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, is set aside. Consequently, the said I.A. stands allowed, on deposit of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), to the credit of O.S.No.64 of 2006 within a period of four weeks from today. On such deposit, the 2nd respondent is permitted to withdraw the same. 7. Revision is accordingly allowed with costs. 8. As much as the suit is of the year 2006 and the evidence is already commenced, I deem it appropriate to direct the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th February 2010 N.B : Furnish C.C. in one week. (b/o) ajr