IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5909 of 2009 Between: Somu Jogirayudu. … Petitioner And Bank of India, Tuni, represented by its Branch manager and three others. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5909 OF 2009 ORDER:- Respondent-bank filed the suit against the petitioner/1st defendant and others, for recovery of the amount due and the said suit was dismissed for default on 19.07.2006 as costs were not paid and the plaintiff was called absent. Thereafter, the respondent-bank filed I.A.No.1071 of 2007 for condoning the delay of 468 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code to restore the suit. The said I.A. was dismissed on the ground that unless steps were taken for restoration of I.A.No.692 of 2005, which was filed to bring the legal representatives of 2nd defendant on record and the legal representatives of 2nd defendant were brought on record, the said I.A., cannot be maintained. When the Bank challenged the dismissal order in I.A.No.1071 of 2007 in C.R.P.No.4544 of 2008, this Court by order dated 31.10.2008 dismissed the revision, granting liberty to the respondent-bank for fling an application for restoration of I.A.No.692 of 2005 along with an application for setting aside the default order, holding that unless the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant, against whom the suit was dismissed, were brought on record, bank cannot maintain the application for setting aside the default order passed in the suit. On dismissal of the revision, the respondent-bank filed the impugned I.A.No.15 of 2009 for condoning the delay of 849 days in filing the petition to set aside the default order passed in the suit and a separate petition for condoning the delay in filing the petition to restore I.A.No.692 of 2005. In view of the same, unless the delay is condoned and the suit is restored, the trial court cannot proceed with the I.A., filed for condoning the delay in filing the petition to restore I.A.No.692 of 2005, which they have not filed earlier. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernable with the order passed by the trial court in allowing the I.A., filed for condoning the delay in restoring the suit and also to take up the I.A., filed for condoning the delay in restoring the I.A.No.692 of 2005. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 11th February 2010 lmv