IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.330 of 2009 Between: Macha Krishnavenamma and 6 others ..... PETITIONERS AND Macha Subbarathnamma and 11 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.330 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners are Defendant Nos.5, 6, and 8 to 12 in the suit in O.S.18/2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein for partition of suit schedule house property. The defendants were set ex parte and a preliminary decree was passed on 07.12.2005. To set aside the said ex parte decree, the petitioners herein filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree and in filing the said application, there was delay of 431 days and hence the petitioners filed I.A.377/2007 to condone the delay of 431 days in filing the application under Or.9 Rule-13 CPC. The said application was dismissed by the Court below, against which, this civil revision petition is filed. Heard both the counsel. It is the case of the petitioners that after receiving summons for their appearance on 24.02.2005, they were all held up at Chennai and therefore, they could not attend before the Court below on 24.02.2005 and they were set ex parte, and thereafter an ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 07.12.2005. They came to know about the same after receipt of final decree petition alone. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that even after receiving the summons, the petitioners herein could not cooperate for disposal of the case on merits and only after passing of ex parte preliminary decree, they came up with the said application under Or.9 Rule-13 CPC along with delay condonation application. I am of the opinion that as the suit is for partition of suit schedule house property, it is just and proper to give an opportunity of hearing the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs fairly submits that the delay condonation application may be considered on payment of costs. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned in the affidavit, I am inclined to allow this civil revision petition, on certain terms. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. I.A.377/2007 stands allowed condoning the delay of 431 day in filing application under Or.9 Rule-13 CPC subject to condition of the petitioners herein paying costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs herein, in lieu of the fee payable to their counsel, within a period of two weeks from today, and produce the receipt in proof of payment of costs to the counsel appearing for respondents/plaintiffs before the Court below. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 05.03.2010 Dsr