THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3865 OF 2009 DATED: 28-10- 2010. Between Mr.V.B.Sastry … Petitioner-Defendant And Mr.Ramachander …Respondent-Plaintiff THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3865 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 03-07-2009 and consequential order, dated 03-07-2009, made in I.A.No.345 of 2008 in O.S.No.359 of 2006, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, R.R. District, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order IX Rule 4 CPC to set aside the order of dismissal of the suit, dated 05-09-2008 and to restore the suit to its original file, was allowed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the suit was dismissed for default and when restoration application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC was filed, no notice was served to the petitioner herein and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. Order IX Rule 4 CPC reads that when a suit is dismissed under rule 2 or rule 3, the plaintiff may institute a fresh suit (subject to the law of limitation). He may also apply for setting aside an order of dismissal. If the court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for failure to appear by the plaintiff, the Court may restore the suit and fix a date for hearing. No doubt, no notice to the defendant is necessary for restoration, but the Court orders notice to the defendant, then the Court must decide the application only after notice is served upon the defendant and he is heard. 4. Though the respondent herein (plaintiff) appears to have sent the notice to the petitioner herein (defendant) through courier, but no proof is filed to show that notice has been received by the defendant. When the Court ordered notice to the defendant in the application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC through registered post and through Court, no steps have been taken by the plaintiff. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to hear the petitioner herein (defendant) in I.A.No.345 of 2008 in O.S.No.359 of 2006, which was filed by the respondent herein (Plaintiff) under order IX Rule 4 CPC. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED:28.10.2010 Hsd