THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.2504 of 2009 Date: 18.2.2011 Between: Smt.P. Anjamma ……….. Petitioner/defendant. And A. Narsaiah ……. Respondent/plaintiff. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.2504 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order and decree dated 15.4.2009 made in I.A No.350 of 2008 in O.S.No.486 of 2007 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S No.486 of 2007. He filed the suit for recovery of money based on pro-note said to have been executed by the petitioner herein for Rs.2,70,000/-. The petitioner herein made his appearance and engaged an advocate before the lower Court. The suit was posted for filing written statement of the petitioner herein. The petitioner’s case is that during that period, she had shifted her family to Hyderabad due to personal problems. When she went to Hanamkonda, she had learnt that her advocate went to abroad and the Court Hall was closed due to transfer of Presiding Officer. So, according to the petitioner in the above circumstances, she could not get proper information about the suit and when she met the present advocate, she came to know that she was set exparte for non-filing of the written statement. The respondent filed a counter denying the contentions of the petitioner. The lower Court observed that though it is a fact that the Presiding Officer of the Court was transferred during those days and the Court was closed, but, the conduct of the petitioner in non-prosecuting the case amounts to negligence and the petitioner failed to prove that there is reasonable cause for her non-appearance and for non-filing of the written statement and accordingly, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, this revision has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lower Court ought to have considered the circumstances under which the delay occurred. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has been dragging on the matter on one ground or the other and though several opportunities were given to her, she did not file the written statement before the lower Court and that the absence of the counsel is not a ground to condone the delay. It is also his submission that if the Court comes to a conclusion that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner, reasonable conditions may be imposed so that the petitioner herein would participate in the proceedings regularly and cooperate in disposal of the suit at an early date. The only point that arises for consideration is whether an opportunity should be given to the petitioner? It is always better the matters are disposed of on merits rather than on technicalities. The specific case of the petitioner is that her previous counsel had been to abroad and he was not available in Warangal. It is also her case that she went to the Court, and the Court hall was closed for several days as there was no Proceeding Officer during that period. These facts are not denied by the respondent. It appears that the Court was closed during those days and the advocate was not in Warangal. The lower Court seems to have not considered these two circumstances and dismissed the application. Therefore, I feel that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to contest the matter before the lower Court on some reasonable terms and conditions. But however, it has to be seen that the suit was filed in 2007 and exparte decree was passed on 2.5.2008 and the petitioner had taken much time to file written statement but failed to file written statement before the lower Court and in the above circumstances, it may be just and reasonable to direct the petitioner to deposit 1/4th of the suit amount within a period of six weeks from today and on compliance of such condition, she should be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings in the suit. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside on condition of the petitioner depositing 1/4th of the suit amount, within a period of six weeks from today. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:18.2.2011 mrb