THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.31 of 2008 Date of Order: 21-12-2010 Between: 1. Julakanti Rupaveni and another ..Petitioners And 1. Sikhakolliannapurnamma and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.31 of 2008 Oral order: This revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is to revise the orders of the VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Vijayawada, allowing I.A.No.747 of 2007 in A.S.No.18 of 2005 filed for remanding the matter to the lower court for proper adjudication on merits. Against the ex-parte decree passed in O.S.No.38 of 1994, dated 29- 03-2004 the above appeal came to be filed, in which the 1st respondent/appellant filed the above I.A. stating that she has not received any summons in O.S.No.38 of 1994, hence she could not contest the matter by filing counter and adducing evidence. She also filed I.A.No.367 of 2007 to receive the documents, which was allowed on 25-07-2007. The learned District Judge allowed the impugned I.A. holding that once the 1st respondent/appellant has not contested the case for want to service of suit summons and once I.A.No.367 of 2007 was allowed and documents are received, it is a fit case for remand; and 1st respondent/appellant should be given an opportunity to contest the claim and accordingly remitted the matter to the lower court for fresh disposal and also permitted the parties to adduce evidence. But, unfortunately the learned District Judge either in the order or the decree has not stated that the judgment under appeal is set aside except stating that the petition is allowed and the suit is remanded back to the trial court with a direction to dispose of the matter by giving an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. After remand, the suit is pending for trial and 1st respondent/appellant filed written statement. This Court has also not stayed the order under revision. In view of the same, the lower court has not committed any illegality in exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 21-12-2010 Murthy