HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No. 969 of 2008 Date: 18-03-2011 Between: Betha Pratap kumar ….. Petitioner and G. Papa Rao ….. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No. 969 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 06-06- 2007 passed in I.A.No.2000 of 2006 in I.A.No.1911 of 2005 in O.S.No.456 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S.No.456 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for recovery of the money, which was dismissed for default on 29-09- 2005. To set aside the said default order, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1911 of 2005 under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C., which was also dismissed for default on the ground that there was no representation on either side. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2001 of 2006 under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. to set aside the dismissal order, dated 01-09-2006 in I.A.No.1911 of 2005 and to restore I.A.No.1911 of 2005, and as there was delay in filing the same, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.2000 of 2006 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 37 days. Both the applications in I.A.Nos.2000 of 2006 and 2001 of 2006 were dismissed by separate orders, dated 06-06-2007. But the petitioner has chosen to file the C.R.P. against the order in I.A.No.2000 of 2006 alone. Though notice is ordered on the respondent, none appears and there is no representation on his behalf. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am of the opinion that even if this C.R.P. is allowed, the order, dated 06-06-2007 passed in I.A.No.2001 of 2006 stares at the petitioner and the dismissal order, dated 01-09-2006 in I.A.No.1911 of 2005 holds good. However, it is for the petitioner to work out the remedies insofar as the said order, dated 06-06-2007 in I.A.No.2001 of 2006 is concerned. Insofar as the present application in I.A.No.2000 of 2006 is concerned, I am of the opinion that the petitioner being the plaintiff, who filed the suit for recovery of the money, and as it is stated that he was suffering from ill-health and therefore, he could not attend the Court, the Court below ought to have condoned the meager delay of 37 days on payment of costs. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order, dated 06-06-2007 in I.A.No.2000 of 2006 is set aside and consequently, I.A.No.2000 of 2006 stands allowed on condition that the petitioner pays costs of Rs.1,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J Date: 18-03-2011 YCR