THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.126 OF 2009 DT.17.03.2010 Between: Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamyvari Temple, Represented by its Executive Officer, Pathapatnam, Srikakulam District. ……………..Appellant Vs. The Chairman, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Another ……………………….Respondents. JUDGMENT:(PER BPR J.,) The appellant-Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamyvari Temple, Pathapatnam, Srikakulam District, which is the petitioner in the court below filed the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (c) C.P.C., seeking to set aside the order dated 12.12.2008 passed in I.A.No.1052 of 2005 in P.O.P.No.160 of 2002 on the file of the District Judge, Srikakulam. The facts of the case in brief are that initially the appellant herein filed an application before the court below under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the default order dated 22.02.2005 passed in P.O.P.No.160 of 2002 and permit the appellant to give evidence. P.O.P.No.160 of 2002 was filed by the appellant herein in forma pauperis for recovery of Rs.1,21,65,356/- being the sale price for the land belong to it to an extent of Ac 9.85 cents, which was acquired by the respondents for the construction of bus depot in the said land and also to declare the appellant herein as indigent. In spite of giving several adjournments, the appellant failed to attend before the court below. On 22.02.2005 when the matter came up for the evidence of the appellant, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, the court below passed orders dismissing P.O.P.No.160 of 2002 for default. Against which, the appellant filed I.A.No.1052 of 2005 seeking to restore the default order, dated 22.02.2005. The court below dismissed the said application also and did not find favour with the appellant on the ground that the appellant herein would have intimated the court below in writing with regard to the emergency meeting conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and in order to drag on the proceedings and also to avoid payment of amount to the respondents, the above said petition was filed by the appellant herein. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and also having gone through the entire material placed before this court, we are primarily of the view that the appellant herein is none other than the institution and huge amount of Government is involved in the matter with regard to the fixation of value of the said land and since the main suit itself is still at the stage of pauperism enquiry, we think that it would be just and proper to give an opportunity to the appellant herein to prove its case. Hence, the order, dated 12.12.2008 is set aside and consequently I.A.No.1052 of 2005 in P.O.P.No.160 of 2002 is allowed and the default order dated 22.02.2005 passed in P.O.P.No.160 of 2002 on the file of the District Judge, Srikakulam is restored. The court below is directed to dispose of P.O.P.No.160 0f 2002 as expeditiously as possible, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., _________________ R.KANTHA RAO J., Dt.17.03.2010 tjs