IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No.4974 of 2007 Between: Kadari Anjaiah ..Petitioner AND Nakkanaboia Sailu and another .. Respondent ORDER: Heard Sri M. Venkataram Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. D. Radhika, learned counsel, representing Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. The revision petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.491 of 2007 in O.S.No.62 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda, on 01-10-2007, permitting the respondents herein to have the ex parte order dated 21-08-2007 set aside on payment of costs of Rs.500/- to PW.1 and also further subject to the condition of cross-examining PW.1 on 8-10- 2007. The defendants made the request for setting aside the ex parte order on the ground of absence of any laches on their part in not being able to attend the Court earlier as they had to migrate to Andhra area for their livelihood. The plaintiff/revision petitioner opposed the request on the ground that the alleged migration to Andhra area is belied by the very presence of the respondents herein in C.C.No.549 of 2004 and hence, he desired the petition to be dismissed. The trial Court in the impugned order observed that though the respondents herein did not avail the opportunities given to them seven times to cross-examine PW.1, in the interests of justice one more chance can be given to them on appropriate terms and conditions. The exercise of judicial discretion by the trial Court in this regard is the subject of challenge herein as the revision petitioner is aggrieved by the trial Court not considering the 2nd respondent herein being examined as witness in C.C.No.549 of 2004 on 05-07- 2007 belying the claim of the respondents of migration to Andhra area to earn their livelihood. The admitted posting of the matter seven times for cross-examination of PW.1 shows positive negligence of the respondents, and therefore, the revision petitioner desired the order to be reversed. The only point for consideration is whether the judicial discretion exercised by the trial Court needs to be interfered with? It is well settled that notwithstanding the orders setting a party ex parte under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the party is entitled to participate in further proceedings in the suit. If so, the respondents herein are any how entitled to participate in the further proceedings in the suit and if the ex parte order passed against them was not set aside, the only disability they would have suffered is that the version of PW.1 in his chief-examination would have gone unchallenged by any cross-examination. The pleadings of both the parties were already before the trial Court and for determination of the questions in controversy between the parties, which form the subject of the issues in the suit, every reasonable opportunity has to be given to both sides to place their version before the Court. Rules of procedure are intended to be handmaids of justice and not to punish the parties for their technical lapses and the trial Court has done well in appropriately compensating PW.1 for the inconvenience suffered by him for seven adjournments by directing payment of costs of Rs.500/- by the respondents to the witness. The jurisdiction exercised by the trial Court in pursuance of its judicial discretion cannot, therefore, be said to be perverse or unreasonable and the impugned order needs no interference. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 08-07-2010 Ksn