HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P. No.1205 of 2010 Order: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 16.2.2010 of the learned VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A. No. 771 of 2009 in O.S No.817 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the trial Court allowed the I.A. filed by the petitioners herein, subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. The petitioners herein filed I.A. No.711 of 2009 under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. before the trial Court seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 26.3.200 passed against them. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., the petitioners have stated that on receipt of summons in the month of August, 2008, they gave vakalat to Sri B. Trinadha Rao, Advocate to defend their case and also instructed him to file written statement. It is further stated that the 2nd petitioner was looking after the affairs of the case and about eight months back he shifted to Hyderabad and as he was busy, he could not contact the counsel. Subsequently, when they came to know about the passing of ex-parte decree, they filed the present application seeking to set aside the same. They further stated that even though they have given vakalat to Mr. Trinadha Rao to defend their case, the learned counsel did not appear on 26.3.2009. As there is a delay of 67 days in filing the present I.A., they also filed a petition to condone the delay. While opposing the contentions, the respondent-plaintiff filed a detailed counter before the trial Court stating that when the petitioners failed to pay the rent and when they fell in arrears, they filed the suit seeking eviction and for recovery of the arrears of rent. They further stated that even after institution of the present suit, the petitioners did not pay the rent. Hence, he prayed that the present I.A. as well as the application for condonation of delay be dismissed. The trial Court having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documentary evidence on record, found that the petitioners have been carrying on business in the premises in question since April, 2008 without paying any rents and in such circumstances, the petitions were not maintainable. However, while keeping in view, the interest of justice and equity, the trial Court allowed the petition subject to the condition of the petitioners paying the admitted rents as claimed by the plaintiff as per the lease deed in the suit till now along with suit costs to the credit of the suit on or before next hearing date, i.e., 22.3.10 failing which the petition shall stand dismissed; and the defendants are further directed to pay admitted monthly rent of every succeeding month on or before 10th of every month to the credit of the suit. The trial Court, while taking into account the fact that the petitioners have been carrying on their business in the premises in question without paying any rents since a long time, has rightly allowed the present petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree, subject to the conditions mentioned above. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial Court warranting interference. The revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioners feel that the amount of arrears is highly excessive, then they shall file appropriate application before the trial Court seeking modification of the impugned order. If such an application is made by the petitioners, it is for the trial Court to decide the same as per law. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J Date: 25th June, 2010 pnb