THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition No.3870 of 2009 Date : 27-08-2009 Between: Idea Cellular Ltd., Khan-Latif-Khan Estate, 1st Floor, Basheerbagh, rep. by Mr.Arun Madhav Manager (Legal) .. Petitioner And Indraprastha Apartment Owners Welfare Association, regd. No.423, 8-3-167/11/A, Near A.G.Colony, Vikasa Puri, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary Mrs.Dodda Venkata Vasantha Sri Lakshmi Vani .. Respondent THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition No.3870 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner/second defendant against the order dated 24.07.2009 passed by the learned II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A. No. 504 of 2009 in O.S. No. 1324 of 2006, whereby the learned Judge, while allowing the petition, filed by the petitioner/second defendant, under Section 151 CPC, to reopen the suit and permit it to contest the suit, imposed a condition to deposit 50% of suit amount of Rs.3,30,000/- on or before 07-08-2009. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.2 in the above suit and the respondent is plaintiff, before the trial court. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant No.2, as arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of money and declaration against the defendants. As the second defendant after initial appearance did not appear before the trial Court and failed to file the written statement in spite of getting ample time, the trial Court set it ex parte by order, dated 22.02.2007. Therefore, second defendant filed I.A.Nos.504 and 505 of 2009 seeking to reopen the suit and permit it to contest the suit and to set aside the ex parte order dated 22-02-2007 respectively. The case of the second defendant is that plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs.6,60,000/- and the second defendant filed vakalat in the suit and thereafter it was under the impression that its’ advocate was looking after the case. After some days, when the second defendant verified in the Court, it came to know that the second defendant was set ex parte for not filing the written statement. When Advocate was contacted, it was informed that father of the Advocate expired on 07-03-2007 and so he was in his native place. The non-prosecution is neither deliberate nor wanton. The case of the plaintiff is that second defendant filed the petitions to protract the litigation at the stage when the suit stood posted for arguments and when the plaintiff concluded its’ side arguments. The trial Court, after hearing either side, allowed the I.A. No.504 of 2009 on condition to deposit 50% of suit amount of Rs.3,30,000/- on or before 07-08-2009 and also allowed the I.A.No.505 of 2009 on condition to file written statement with further condition to allowing I.A.No.504 of 2009 by 07.08.2009. Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.504 of 2009, the instant Civil Revision Petition is filed. Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/second defendant vehemently contended that the condition to deposit 50% of the suit amount as imposed by the trial Court while allowing the I.A.No.504 of 2009 is an onerous condition. The petitioner could not file the Written Statement due to communication gap between him and his earlier counsel, as his earlier counsel went to his native place due to the death of his father on 09-03-2007. It is also contented that the trial Court ought to have seen that in catena of Judgments this Hon’ble Court and the Apex Court held that the Courts should take liberal view in the nature of the present applications to render substantial justice to the parties. Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff resisted the revision on the ground that as the petitioner/second defendant filed the present application belatedly when the suit stood posted for arguments and the arguments on the side of respondent/plaintiff was concluded, the trial Court has rightly imposed the condition while allowing the I.A. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and on perusal of the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the condition as imposed by the trial Court is quite unreasonable and onerous. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 24-07-2009 passed in I.A.No.504 of 2009 in O.S.No.1324 of 2006 by the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, only to the extent of imposing the condition to deposit 50% of suit amount of Rs.3,30,000/-, on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to Mr.A.V.Kondaiah, Advocate, within two weeks from today. (T.MEENA KUMARI, J.) 27th August, 2009 skmr