THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.1626 OF 2010 23-07-2010 Between: Kunam Raghava Reddy ..petitioner Vs. Gandham Uma Lakshmi and others …Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.1626 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER The revision petitioner is the 5th defendant in O.S.No.1126 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole instituted by the 1st respondent herein for specific performance of the suit schedule property. The revision petitioner engaged counsel and states to have filed his written statement. The trial commenced and the plaintiff filed an affidavit representing his testimony as PW.1. The matter was posted for cross examination of PW.1 and on 18-01-2010 PW.1 presented himself for cross examination but defendant Nos.1, 3 and 5 were called absent and there was also no representation on behalf of these defendants by counsel. Therefore, they were set ex parte. PW.1 was cross examined by the 2nd defendant and the matter posted for further examination of plaintiff’s witnesses to 22-01-2010. At that stage, on 04-03-2010 the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.463 of 2010 under Order IX, Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC seeking recall of the order dated 18-01-2010 setting him ex parte in the suit for his absence. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.463 of 2010, the revision petitioner breezily pleaded that when the matter was posted for cross examination of PW.1, he had gone to Hyderabad on his personal work, fell sick on account of viral fever and could not contact his counsel for giving suitable instructions for cross examination of PW.1, and therefore he be permitted to do so after setting aside the order dated 18-01-2010 setting him ex parte. The 1st respondent / plaintiff filed a counter-affidavit categorically rebutting the averments of the petitioner and specifically pleaded that the several averments of the petitioner, that he has proceeded to Hyderabad on personal work, fell sick and could not contact his Advocate, were all concocted and false. The 1st respondent pleaded that the revision petitioner had never proceeded to Hyderabad and continued in village but had filed a false affidavit in support of I.A.No.463 of 2010. Dismissing the I.A.No.463 of 2010 by the order dated 18- 03-2010 (impugned herein), the court below recorded that in the context of the plaintiff’s denial of the revision petitioner’s averments in the application seeking recall of the order dated 18-01-2010, the revision petitioner was required to establish that he had just and reasonable cause for his absence on 18-01-2010 and also had to explain the failure of his Advocate in representing him. No such attempt was made and no documentary or other evidence was presented to establish that the revision petitioner has reasonable cause for not appearing either in person or through his counsel on 18- 01-2010. On this reason I.A.No.463 of 2010 was rejected. This court discerns no infirmity in the order of the court below warranting revisional interference. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would plead that he should be given an opportunity to cross examine PW.1 and to participate in the further steps in the suit and that the vagueness in the pleadings is on account of inadequate professional assistance before the court below. He has filed material in this Court to support his contentions in the court below that he had indeed fell sick after he had gone to Hyderabad, at the relevant period. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the revision petitioner is willing to compensate the 1st respondent/plaintiff for the trouble and expense incurred in the protraction of the suit on account of the revision petitioner’s inadvertent but avoidable error in being absent on 18-01-2010 and his counsel also not being present on that date. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would pay the 1st respondent/plaintiff an amount of Rs.2000/- by an account payee Demand Draft drawn on a nationalized bank within two weeks from today to compensate the plaintiff for the trauma and expense involved in the protraction of the trial of the suit. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent does not seriously reject this offer of the revision petitioner. In the facts and circumstances above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed on condition that the revision petitioner pays an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) by way of an account payee Demand Draft drawn on a nationalized bank in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff within a period of two(2) weeks from today. On such payment, the order dated 18.03.2010 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole rejecting I.A.No.463 of 2010 in O.S.No.1126 of 2005 shall stand quashed and I.A.No.436 of 2010 allowed. In default of such payment within the time stipulated herein, the revision shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 23rd JULY 2010 TSNR