IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5824 of 2009 Between: Buchannagari Sujatha ..... PETITIONER AND Jarugu Sreenivasulu Reddy .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5824 of 2009 ORDER: Heard both the counsel. The petitioner is the defendant. The respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.39/2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 31.08.2004. The said suit was filed in the month of Novemer, 2004 and the written statement was filed in the month of October 2005. The trial was commenced in February 2006. The plaintiff was examined and after marking of exhibits, the suit was initially decreed on 01.08.2006. The defendant filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree under Or.9 Rule-13 CPC which was allowed on 08.11.2006. It is stated that in spite of allowing the said application permitting the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff witnesses, the defendant could not avail the said opportunity and therefore, the suit was once again decreed on 02.02.2007 and based on the ex parte decree, E.P.8/2007 was filed for execution of the sale deed. It is stated that the plaintiff also paid the balance of sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- on 31.03.2007 and the said deposit was lying in the Court. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree along with an application to condone the delay. It is stated that the petition filed under Sec.5 of Limitation Act was dismissed, against which the defendant filed CRP.5903/2007 on the file of this Court and this Court disposed of the said CRP on 03.11.2008, condoning the delay with a direction to dispose of the application filed under Or.9 Rule-13 CPC in I.A.187/2007 within a period of one month. Thereafter, the said application was allowed and the suit was posted for trial on 05.06.2009. On 05.06.2009 neither the defendant nor her counsel was present and therefore the defendant was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was again passed on 05.06.2009. To set aside the ex parte dated 05.06.2009, the petitioner herein filed I.A.222/2009. The said application was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Punganur by order dated 14.09.2009, against which the petitioner filed CMA.23/2009 on the file of the learned II Addl.District Judge, Madanapalle, and the lower appellate Court, by order dated 06.11.2009, dismissed the said CMA while confirming the order of the trial Court made in I.A.222/2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. In view of narration of facts, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff seriously opposed this revision petition and states that the petitioner/defendant purposefully and with an evil intention and to drag on the matter filed the present revision petition. It is stated that the respondent/plaintiff is working at far away place and he is coming every time by spending time and money, undergoing serious hardship and mental agony. In the present case, it is stated that the defendant’s counsel could not attend the Court on the day when the case was coming up for hearing due to mechanical defect of the vehicle and the defendant was also called absent and she was set ex parte on 05.06.2009. Though there is some explanation with regard to the absence of the counsel, but there is no proper explanation for the absence of the petitioner/defendant. But it is stated that by the time the matter was called, the defendant could not attend and as she was absent the ex parte decree was passed on 05.06.2009 and it is stated that the very same application seeking to set aside the said ex parte decree was filed on 19.06.2009. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that after passing of the ex parte decree on 05.06.2009, respondent/plaintiff filed E.P.20/2009 and as the entire balance of sale consideration pursuant to the agreement was deposited, the trial Court has also executed a Sale Deed on 04.12.2009. I am not inclined to deal with the said issue as it is for the respondent/defendant to take appropriate steps for the subsequent events that have taken place. As the suit is being filed for specific performance and as the matter relates to the year 2004, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to dispose of the suit on merits. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order under revision is set aside and the I.A.222/2009 in O.S.39/2004 stands allowed, subject to condition of the petitioner/defendant depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards costs of these proceedings before the trial Court, within a period of one week from today and on such deposit, it is open for the respondent/plaintiff to withdraw the same without furnishing any security, and also subject to further condition that the petitioner/defendant and her counsel shall report ready as and when the case is posted on day today basis and the suit itself be disposed of within a period of four weeks from today. In default of compliance of this order, as stipulated above, the civil revision petition shall stand dismissed, without any further reference to the Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 05.12.2009 Dsr Note: Furnish copy to the concerned immediately. B/o Dsr