IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.445 OF 2008 Between: T.L. Rambabu. - - - Revision Petitioner. AND The Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad. - - - Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.445 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in I.A. No.105 of 2006 in O.P. No.18 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, questioning the dismissal application for restoration of the O.P. 2. It appears that the petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit. As seen from the order of the lower Court, initially an ex parte decree was passed against the defendant on 23-04-2004 and it was set aside on 10-06-2005 and subsequently, the O.P. was dismissed for default on 02-09-2005 and I.A. No.170 of 2005 was filed and the said application was allowed on 07-02-2006 by passing a conditional order for restoration of the O.P. on payment of costs of Rs.500/- to D.L.S.A. and for compliance on 28-08-2006 on condition of filing of chief-affidavit of the petitioner. The costs was paid but again on 13-03-2006, it was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the proceedings of the trial and again on 04-09-2006, the Court set aside that ex parte order and restored the O.P. to file. Therefore, as on the date of 13-02-2006, the O.P. was restored to file and was coming for trial. At that stage, the petitioner has filed I.A. No.105 of 2006 under Rule 32 of the C.P.C. to permit the proceedings to be prosecuted by one Kodamanchili Kasiviswanadham as a General Power of Attorney holder. The lower Court without any reasons dismissed that application and simultaneously dismissed I.A. No.170 of 2005. 3. The counsel for the petitioner has preferred this revision against order in I.A. 105 of 2006. Accordingly, the counsel represents that instead of mentioning the I.A. as 175 of 2005, the number is mentioned as I.A.105 of 2006 and therefore, it may be treated as a revision against dismissal of I.A. No.170 of 2005. 4. In view of the fact that there could be no revision against the order in I.A. No.105 of 2006 without pendency of the Original Petition before the lower Court, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is valid and accordingly this Revision is treated as one against dismissal of I.A. No.170 of 2005 and not against I.A. No.105 of 2006. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the Court is not inclined to accept the application under Rule 32 in I.A. No.170 of 2005, it should not have been dismissed I.A. No.170 of 2005 and should have proceeded with the trial of the case. 5. I find substance in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. The question of dismissal of I.A. 175 of 2005 does not arise since already orders were passed, compliance was made by the petitioner and there is nothing open for the petitioner. If at all the Court warranted to deny the further adjournment, should have afresh dismissed the petition instead of dismissing I.A. 175 of 2005. 6. Therefore, the dismissal order of the lower Court is erroneous and therefore I.A. 175 of 2005 is set aside and the lower Court is directed to take on file the O.P. and proceed with the trial. So far as the order in I.A. No.105 of 2006 is concerned, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order. If the petitioner has got any personal inconveniences in coming to the Court, a Commissioner can be appointed or any other evidence of the employees can be adduced. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the O.P. within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. Dt.14-12-2010. DSH