THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1589 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition has been preferred by the sole defendant in civil suit OS No. 12 of 2009 calling in question the legality and validity of the orders passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, at Bhainsa, on 25.1.2010 dismissing the IA No. 110 of 2009 moved by him seeking to set aside the ex parte order passed on 1.5.2009. The case of the petitioner/defendant is that the respondents herein who are the plaintiffs have instituted the civil suit seeking for permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner herein from interfering with the possession of the respondents. The petitioner has received the summons on 22.3.2009 in the suit. The first date that is set for the suit was 1.5.2009 and on the grounds that the petitioner herein has neither entered appearance nor marked his presence on 1.5.2009, he was set ex parte. IA No. 110 of 2009 has been moved by the petitioner herein on 13.7.2009 seeking the court to set aside the ex parte order dated 1.5.2009 so that the petitioner herein can defend the suit. That application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 25.1.2010. The learned Junior Civil Judge would record that the petitioner herein has failed to assign any reasons as to why the interlocutory application could not be filed up to 13.7.2009. Hence, he dismissed the IA. Sri K.Manik Prabhu, learned counsel appering for the respondent strenuously opposed the civil revision petition contending that an erring party should not be shown any indulgence. However, I disagree with the learned counsel’s contention because the petitioner- defendant had time to react to the summons by filing his written statement till 22.6.2009. As soon as the suit has been instituted and summons were issued therein on 22.3.2009 setting 1.5.2009 as the first date of appearance. The petitioner herein has stated that the parties were trying to sort out the problems with the intervention of the village elders and therefore he was under the bona fide impression that the suit will not be pressed. Contrary to his expectations, he was set ex parte by the civil court. I do not see any justification for the civil court to have set the petitioner ex parte on the very first day of appearance. An opportunity should have been provided for the petitioner herein to enter his appearance in the matter because three months time is available to him from the date of issuing of summons for filing his written statement. Therefore, till such time is elapsed, the court below ought to have waited. Setting a party to a su i t ex parte on the 1st day itself perhaps is not warranted. Hence, I have no hesitation to set aside the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa, in IA No. 110 of 2009 in OS No. 12 of 2009 and allow the petitioner herein to contest the suit subject to the following two conditions : (1) the petitioner herein shall file his detailed written statement on or before 30.9.2010 duly serving an advance copy on the opposite side (2) He shall also pay the respondents herein costs in a sum of Rs.300/- by depositing before the learned Junior Civil Judge’s Court along with the written statement so that the said money can be transmitted by the court to the respondents herein who are the plaintiffs in the suit towards the costs. Civil Revision Petition is allowed. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 13th August 2010