IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3615 of 2009 Between: B.Srinivasa Reddy … Petitioner And P.Purnachandra Rao and two others. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3615 OF 2009 ORDER:- This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/claimant is directed against the dismissal order passed by IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada in I.A.No.436 of 2009 in O.P.No.390 of 2004 on 04.05.2009 filed to condone the delay of 341 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, “the CPC”) to set aside the default order passed in I.A.No.190 of 2008, dated 20.02.2008. Petitioner filed the above O.P. seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 22.02.2004. When the main O.P. was coming up for trial and posted for evidence on 11.12.2007, petitioner could not appear to lead evidence and the notice on the 2nd respondent could not be served for nonpayment of batta by the petitioner and as such, the O.P. was dismissed for default against the 2nd respondent on 15.05.2007. Further, the petitioner failed to appear on 03.12.2007 and at the request of the counsel the matter was adjourned to 11.12.2007 on payment of costs of Rs.200/-. On the said date also, the petitioner has not complied the order passed on 03.12.2007 and the costs were not paid and there was no representation on his behalf to lead evidence and hence, the O.P. was dismissed for default. On dismissal of the O.P. for default, the petitioner filed I.A.No.190 of 2008 on 11.01.2008 under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC, for setting aside the dismissal order and the same was allowed on 06.02.2008 on condition of petitioner leading evidence and participating in the proceedings in the main O.P. on 20.02.2008 and on payment of costs of Rs.200/- as ordered on 03.12.2007. Since the petitioner failed to comply the said conditional order also, I.A.No.190 of 2008 filed under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC was dismissed. On dismissal of the said I.A., the impugned I.A. was filed for condoning the delay of 341 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside the default order in I.A.No.190 of 2008. The trial court by the impugned order dismissed the I.A. holding that the petitioner failed to comply the conditional order and sufficient reasons were not assigned for condoning the delay of 341 days and as to what happened to him from 26.02.2008 i.e., the date of filing of the present petition and what prevented him from filing the petition earlier, have not been explained. Questioning the same, the present revision is filed. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner, who filed the above O.P. seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, cannot be deprived of the compensation on mere technicalities, the trial court ought to have shown some leniency instead of denying the just claim of compensation on technical grounds. In view of the circumstances explained above and having regard to the fact that in spite of service of notice, the officials of the 3rd respondent-insurance company have not put up appearance opposing the claim, the impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. I.A.No.436 of 2009 filed for condoning the delay stands allowed on condition of petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the credit of the O.P. within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.200/- can be deducted by the trial court as per its order dated 03.12.2007 and the remaining amount, shall be credited to the Legal Services Authority, Kakinada. Further, on compliance of the condition imposed by this Court, I.A.No.190 of 2008 filed on 11.01.2008 stands allowed, restoring the O.P.No. 390 of 2004 to its file subject to petitioner making himself present in the Court on 21.04.2010 for leading evidence by filing affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination and on 26.04.2010 for the purpose of cross-examination. Further, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any interest on the compensation awarded, if any, for the period from 15.05.2007 i.e., the date on which the O.P. was dismissed for default, till the petitioner deposits the amount for restoring the O.P. The trial Court while awarding the compensation, if any, shall take note of the same and shall not award any interest for the said period. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed with the above directions. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 1st April 2010 Lmv