HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3243 OF 2009 DATE:12-08-2011 BETWEEN Valluru Rajasekhar …Petitioner AND Kondeti Srinivasa Rao and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3243 OF 2009 ORDER: Petitioner is a third party to the proceedings in A.T.C.No.4 of 2007 filed by first respondent herein against the respondents 2 and 3 to declare him as a statutory tenant. On filing counter by the respondents 2 and 3 on 15.6.2007 stating that the property was already sold to the petitioner herein on 28.2.2007, first respondent, who filed the A.T.C., filed I.A.No.632 of 2008 to implead the petitioner herein as third respondent in the A.T.C. The said I.A. was allowed on 10.11.2008 and on allowing the same, the first respondent herein, who is petitioner in A.T.C., carried out the said amendment in which notice has been ordered to the petitioner herein. On service of notice, one G.Nageswara Rao filed vakalat for the petitioner herein and sought time for filing counter. When the matter came up for counter of petitioner herein and for additional counter of respondents 2 and 3 herein, as there was no representation on 2.2.2009, it was taken as there was no additional counter for respondents 2 and 3 herein in the main ATC and the matter was posted for counter of petitioner herein on costs. At that stage, petitioner herein filed the impugned I.A. No.144 of 2009 to set aside the order dated 29.10.2008 passed in I.A.No.632 of 2008 and to permit him to file the counter. The main reasons put forth by the petitioner in filing the impugned I.A. are that after the I.A.No.632 of 2008 is allowed, he received the notice in the ATC and therefore, the order allowing the said I.A. amounts to ex parte and therefore, he may be permitted to file counter to contest the said I.A. The lower Court rejected the said contention stating that during the pendency of I.A.No.632 of 2008, notice was returned unserved on the petitioner and therefore, upon memo filed by the first respondent herein for substituted service of notice, the same was allowed and the notice was published in the newspaper ‘Pledge’ and in spite of publication of notice in the said newspaper, as the petitioner herein remained absent on 29.10.2008, he was set ex parte and the I.A. was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner now contends that the ‘Pledge’ newspaper is not widely circulated in the locality and therefore, as the substituted service of notice was taken out in a newspaper, which is not in wide circulation, the lower Court ought to have allowed the impugned I.A. It is not in dispute that on allowing I.A.No.632 of 2008, petitioner was also served with the notice on the same address in A.T.C. and that he received the said notice and appeared through his advocate and the matter was posted for the counter of the petitioner and for additional counter of respondents 2 and 3 herein on 2.2.2009. On the said date, the matter was again posted for counter of the petitioner on costs. In that view of the matter, no error is apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to file his counter within three weeks from today. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. AUGUST 12, 2011 Tsr.