THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition No.3740 of 2009 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 25.06.2009 passed by the learned II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A. No.73 of 2009 in O.S. No.1454 of 2007, whereby the learned Judge, allowed the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dated 17.12.2008 on deposit of 1/4th of the decretal amount to the suit cost. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.1 in the above suit and the respondent is plaintiff, before the court below. The plaintiff – respondent herein filed the above suit for recovery of money of Rs.3,05,922/- against the defendants. After receipt of the notice in the suit, the defendants filed vakalat and as well as written statement. The respondents filed Chief Evidence Affidavit and marked documents in the suit on 05.12.2008. While so, when the matter was posted for cross-examination, as there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner – defendant No.1, the trial Court forfeited the right for cross- examination and reserved the matter for judgment and on 17-12-2008 an ex parte decree was passed. It is the case of the petitioner/defendant No.1 that her counsel could not appear on that day as he was in Ayyappa Deeksha and he was not keeping good health. The court below on perusing the records and after hearing the counsel allowed the present application on condition to deposit 1/4th of the decretal amount to the suit cost. Aggrieved by such condition, the petitioner/defendant No.1 filed the Civil Revision Petition inter alia contending that the learned Judge failed to consider the averments made in the petition filed to set aside the ex parte decree and he ought to have considered the stage of the case which was coming for cross-examination of P.W.1 by the defendants and erred in forfeiting the right as well as by setting the defendants ex parte and reserving the suit for judgment on the same day i.e., on 17-12-2008. The trial Court, on perusing the material available on record and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly allowed the application imposing the condition to deposit 1/4th of the decretal amount to the suit cost. I see no illegality or irregularity that has been committed by the Court below in having passed the impugned order in I.A.No.73 of 2009. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, the time to deposit ¼ of the decretal amount is extended for a period of thirty days from today. No order as to costs. (T.MEENA KUMARI, J.) 20th August, 2009. skmr