THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 239 of 2010 Dated: 02.02.2010 Between: K.Lakshminarayana, Ananthapur District. … Petitioner And Y.Adimurthy, Ananthapur District. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 239 of 2010 O R D E R : The revision petitioner suffered a money decree dated 21.11.2005 in O.S.No.314 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur. Pursuant thereto, the respondent-decree holder filed E.P.No.5 of 2008 for execution of decree by arrest of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor. By order dated 10.06.2008, the revision petitioner/judgment debtor was set ex-parte since he failed to attend despite service of notice and the Court below directed arrest of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor. At that stage, the revision petitioner/judgment debtor filed E.A.No.393 of 2008 on 24.09.2008 seeking to set aside the ex-parte order. The said application was adjourned from time to time for more than a year and ultimately, by order dated 08.12.2009, the Court below allowed the application stating as under: “In the result, this application is allowed on costs of Rs.500/- to be paid by the petitioner/Judgment debtor within 15 days from the date of this order and shall file counter on the next day of adjournment. If the petitioner fails to pay costs and file counter the ex-parte order dated 10.06.2008 stands good and posted to 23.12.2009.” Though the costs were paid, admittedly, the petitioner did not file his counter and therefore, by order dated 23.12.2009 E.A.No.393 of 2008 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed contending that the counter in the E.P. as directed by the Court below could not be filed since the advocates were boycotting the Court on 23.12.2009 in connection with the agitation of Samikya Andhra. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having considered the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit matter warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to file a counter in terms of the order passed by the Court below dated 08.12.2009 in which there was a direction to file a counter on the next day of adjournment. Hence, the Court below cannot be said to have committed any error in exercise of the jurisdiction vested under law. However, having regard to the reasons explained by the petitioner for his inability to file counter in compliance with the directions of the Court below, the petitioner is hereby permitted to make an appropriate application before the Court below seeking to recall the order dated 23.12.2009. If any such application is made, the Court below shall consider the same in accordance with law and appropriate orders be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of such application. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 02.02.2010 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. B/o KLP