IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1033 OF 2009 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION (SR) No.5748 OF 2009 BETWEEN: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1033 OF 2009: Smt. Shaik Shameem Begum W/o. Fareed Saheb @ Fareed …. Petitioner AND Garikapti Gurunadha Rao S/o.Venkateswarlu …. Respondent CIVIL REVISION PETITION (SR) No.5748 OF 2009: Garikapti Gurunadha Rao S/o.Venkateswarlu …. Petitioner AND Smt. Shaik Shameem Begum W/o. Fareed Saheb @ Fareed …. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1033 OF 2009 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION (SR) No.5748 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. At the request of the learned counsel for both sides, both the revisions are taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 3. The petitioner in CRP No.1033 of 2009 is the defendant and the petitioner in CRP (SR) No.5748 of 2009 is the plaintiff, in O.S. No.16 of 1997. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 5. In a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.16 of 1997, an ex parte decree came to be passed vide order dated 11-04-1997 itself. Thereafter, the defendant filed I.A. No.1293 of 2001 to set aside the ex parte decree dated 11-04-1997 along with an application for condonation of delay of 1,592 days. The trial Court after elaborate consideration, dismissed the application vide order dated 25-03-2004. Then, the matter was carried in appeal by the defendant in CMA No.15 of 2006. The lower appellate Court allowed the said CMA by an order dated 12-12-2008 on condition of the defendant paying costs of Rs.1,000/- on or before 20-01-2009 and directed that in case of default, the CMA stands dismissed. Admittedly, the defendant did not comply the said conditional order and filed I.A. No.49 of 2009 on 20-1-2009 seeking extension of time. The lower appellate Court, on 20-1-2009 at 4-10 PM, dismissed the I.A. No.49 of 2009 and also dismissed the CMA on the ground that the costs were not deposited. Being aggrieved of the docket order passed at 4-10 PM on 20-01-2009 in CMA No.15 of 2006, the defendant filed CRP No.1033 of 2009 and against the order dated 12-12-2008 in CMA No.15 of 2006, the plaintiff filed CMA (SR) No.5748 of 2009. No revision has been filed against the dismissal order in I.A. No.49 of 2009, which was filed seeking extension of time for compliance of the order dated 20-01-2009. 6. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff i.e. respondent herein submits that subsequent to passing of the decree, third party rights have been created under the registered sale deed executed as long back as on 01-06-2000. 7. Having considered the submissions, it is seen that there were apparently sufficient latches on the part of the defendant and there is no proper perception even where an indulgence is sought to be allowed while granting costs of Rs.1,000/-. Instead of depositing the costs as ordered, the defendant filed a petition seeking extension of time and the same was dismissed and the said order was not challenged. Since the deposit of costs, as stated by the defendant, is only after the appeal was dismissed at 4-10 PM noting that the costs were not paid, I do not find any justification to show any indulgence in favour of the defendant. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition No.1033 of 2009 is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of CRP No.1033 of 2009, there is no need of passing any order in CRP (SR) No.5748 of 2009. Accordingly, the CRP (SR) No.5748 of 2009 is dismissed as closed. __________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J February 19, 2010 KTL