THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR C.R.P.No.5517 of 2008 Date: 08.07.2010 Between: Gorantla Subba Rao … Petitioner AND M/s. Y.S.R. Company, Rep.by it’s Proprietor, Yerram Sesha Reddy, Idupulapadu village, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR C.R.P. No.5517 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is the defendant in the suit O.S.No.3 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Parchuru. This eviction suit, filed by the respondent herein, came to be dismissed for default on 22.08.2007. Thereupon, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.709 of 2007 under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. to set aside the dismissal order dated 22.08.2007. Orders were reserved in the said application on 15.10.2008. While so, the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.503 of 2008 to reopen the enquiry in I.A.No.709 of 2007. By order dated 01.11.2008, the trial Court allowed the said application on payment of costs of Rs.50/- on or before 04.11.2008. It appears that the respondent/plaintiff deposited the costs as directed on 05.11.2008. Surprisingly, the trial Court recording this factum allowed I.A.No.709 of 2007 by its order dated 05.11.2008. Hence, this C.R.P. The facts aforestated demonstrate that the trial Court did not undertake any fresh enquiry as sought by the respondent-plaintiff in I.A.No.503 of 2008 in O.S.No.3 of 2006. Upon the deposit of cost as directed by it under order dated 01.11.2008, the trial Court straight away allowed I.A.No.709 of 2007 by the cryptic order dated 05.11.2008. There is no discussion as to why the trial Court set aside the ex parte dismissal order dated 22.08.2007. The order reflects that merely because the respondent/plaintiff deposited the costs, the petition was allowed. This exercise of discretion on the part of the trial Court is not in keeping with the requirements of the legal provision. The order is therefore unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the Senior Civil Judge, Parchuru for reconsideration of I.A.No.709 of 2007 in O.S.No.3 of 2006. The trial Court shall reopen the enquiry, hear both the parties and pass reasoned orders afresh within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 08.07.2010 Isn