THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.396 of 2006 Date:18.11.2010 Between: A.Rajavardhan Reddy and another. ……….. Petitioners. And State Bank of India (ADB), Wanaparthy Branch Rep.by its Branch Manager, Mahabubnagar District. ……. Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.396 of 2006 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 22.12.2005 passed in C.M.A.No.22 of 2005 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, confirming the order and decree dated 6.1.2004 passed in I.A.No.720 of 2002 in O.S.No.6 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. The brief facts of the case are follows: The respondent herein is plaintiff and the petitioners herein are defendants in O.S.No.6 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money from the defendants and as the defendants failed to file written statement, they were set exparte and exparte decree was passed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed I.A.No.720 of 2002 under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC to set aside the exparte decree dated 9.8.2002 and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same the defendants have filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.22 of 2005 before I Additional District Judge at Mahaboobnagar and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed by the defendants. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants/defendants and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. The only point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds to allow the revision and whether the petitioner should be given an opportunity to contest the suit? Admittedly, the respondent/bank filed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,84,268/- as the petitioners herein failed to pay the due amount to the bank. The said suit was adjourned for filing written statement for a period of four months on their request. Finally, on 25.7.2002, their counsel reported no instructions. Then on behalf of the respondents, P.W.1 was examined on 9.8.2002 and exparte decree was passed. Then I.A.No.720 of 2002 has been filed to set aside the exparte decree. The 1st petitioner herein filed an affidavit. He has shown his occupation as Legal Practitioner in his affidavit and he contended that from the last week of June, 2002 till the end of August 2002 he was out of station and could not contact the advocate and subsequently, he fell sick in the remote village, and then ultimately contacted the advocate on 1.9.2002 and came to know that the suit was decreed against them. He simply stated that his absence before the Court on 25.7.2002 was not intentional. Admittedly, he has not whispered anything about the second petitioner as to why the second petitioner herein could not contact the advocate in his absence. The learned Senior Civil Judge holding that the 1st petitioner is a Legal Practitioner and that no sufficient cause is shown for the absence of the second petitioner and dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the appeal in C.M.A.No.22 of 2005. The learned I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar also confirmed the orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar in I.A.No.720 of 2002. Now the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an opportunity may be given to the petitioners to contest the suit and that the revision may be allowed on some terms and conditions. Though no sufficient grounds are shown as far as the second petitioner is concerned, but since the 1st petitioner had stated in his affidavit that he was suffering from ill-health in the remote village and could not contact the advocate, I consider just and reasonable to allow the revision subject to the condition of the petitioners paying the entire decretal amount with proportionate costs and interest on or before 14.3.2011. If the petitioners fail to deposit the decretal amount as indicated above, the revision stands dismissed and the respondent/bank can enforce their decree by initiating necessary legal proceedings. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Date: 18.11.2010 mrb