HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 3592 of 2011 Dated: 28.09.2011 Between: K.Peddi Raju … Petitioner And Sri Lakshmi Housing Enterprises, Hyderabad and 5 others. … Respondents HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 3592 of 2011 O R D E R: The revision petitioner is the defendant No.6 in O.S.No.622 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The suit is filed by the first respondent herein for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 14.03.1992 executed by one Abdul Khader through his GPA holder-defendant No.6 in respect of the plaint schedule property. The defendants 1 to 4 who claim to be the legal heirs of the Abdul Khader (the vendor of plaintiff) stated to have executed an agreement of sale dated 16.10.1999 in favour of defendant No.5 in respect of the suit schedule property after the death of Abdul Khader. Though the suit summons were served on the defendant No.6 and appearance was also entered on his behalf, he did not file the written statement and consequently, he was set ex parte by order dated 31.07.2007. Thereafter, the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was adduced and while the evidence on behalf of the defendants was in progress, the defendant No.6 filed I.A.No.37 of 2011 under Order 9 Rule 7 of C.P.C. with a prayer to permit him to file his written statement and to participate in the suit proceedings. Though the plaintiff did not choose to oppose the said application, separate counters were filed by the defendants 2 and 5. After hearing both the parties, the Court below by order dated 07.07.2011 dismissed I.A.No.37 of 2011 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the defendant No.6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.37 of 2011 it was pleaded by the defendant No.6/revison petitioner as under: “It is submitted that the plaintiff herein has filed the above suit for specific performance. I received the summons from the Hon’ble Court and I engaged my lawyer to prosecute the case on my behalf. Thereafter, I suffered serious health problems and I was bedridden. Subsequently I lost my total eye sight. Hence, I was unable to attend and instruct my counsel to prosecute the case and as such my lawyer could not file the written statement. Now I am feeling better as such I enquired from the lawyer and he informed that my right to file written statement was forfeited in 2007. Non-filing of the written statement is neither willful nor wanton but for the above said reasons. Hence, it is just and necessary to set aside the orders dated 31.07.2007 as otherwise I will suffer irreparable loss and injury.” The defendant No.3 as well as defendant No.5 in their counter affidavits disputed the plea that defendant No.6 was bed ridden and that he was unable to instruct his counsel to file the written statement and prosecute the case. In spite of such denial by the respondents, the revision petitioner did not choose to produce any evidence to substantiate the plea that he suffered from serious health problems and was unable to prosecute the case. The affidavit filed by him, which is extracted above, is extremely vague and neither the dates during which he was unwell nor any other details were furnished. Moreover, in spite of the fact that the respondents filed detailed counter affidavits denying the inability pleaded by the petitioner, the revision petitioner did not choose to come into witness box and not even a medical certificate was produced to substantiate his plea. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below had rightly disbelieved the plea of the revision petitioner and dismissed I.A.No.37 of 2011. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contended that since the revision petitioner filed a memo stating that in the event of his allowing his petition he would not file any petition to recall P.Ws.1 to 3, the Court below ought to have permitted him to file his written statement and participate in the suit proceedings. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel that by adopting such procedure no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner and therefore, the Court below committed a grave error in dismissing the petition. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/the respondent No.1 herein supported the case of the revision petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.5, while contending that non-filing of the written statement by the revision petitioner was deliberate and that the application under Order 9 Rule 7 was nothing but an attempt to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the plaintiff, vehemently contended that the order under revision warrants no interference. Under Order 9 Rule 7 of C.P.C, the defendant, who was set ex parte can be heard if he appears at a later stage and assigns good cause for his previous non- appearance. However, this is a case where the petitioner has miserably failed to make out a sufficient cause for his previous non-appearance. Hence, the Court below cannot be held to have committed any error in dismissing the petition. The law is also well settled that the defendant who was set ex parte can be permitted to participate in subsequent proceedings from the stage at which he puts his appearance. In fact, such a relief was granted to the petitioner by the Court below and he was granted liberty to participate in the trial in the manner available under law. The said procedure adopted by the Court below, being in accordance with law, the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 28.09.2011 KLP