IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1014 of 2010 Between: Kattamreddy Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o.Balaram Reddy, aged 70 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Chillakur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District … Petitioner And Duvvuru Ratnamma, W/o.Sesha Reddy, aged about 70 years, R/o. Manubole village and Mandal, Nellore, and others Order: This civil revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed aggrieved of the order dated 19-01-2010 passed in C.M.A.No.1 of 2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur confirming the order dated 07- 04-2005 passed in I.A.No.415 of 2004 in O.S.No.69 of 1994 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gudur. Respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit. They filed the said suit against the petitioner-defendant seeking damages, claiming an amount of Rs.53,700/-. The petitioner filed a written statement. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined. After part evidence, when the matter was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1, as there was no representation on 05-04-2004, the matter was adjourned to 09-04-2004. On 09-04-2004, again, as there was no representation, it was adjourned on payment of costs of Rs.25/- by the plaintiffs. On 12-04-2004, costs were paid and the matter was posted for petitioner-defendant’s evidence on 19-04-2004, on which day it was represented that the petitioner was not ready. From the docket proceedings, it is clear that there was an indication that no further time will be given. Even thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 20-04-2010. On the said date also, the petitioner- defendant was called absent and there was no representation; as such evidence of the plaintiff was closed. The matter was posted for petitioner-defendant’s evidence on 21-04-2004. Even on 21-04-2004, the petitioner-defendant was called absent. Costs were also not paid. The matter was again adjourned to 27-04-2010 on which day the suit was decreed. In view of the same, the court below, by recording finding that the petitioner-defendant was not diligently pursuing the matter, although he has pursued his application to stay the trial of the suit on the earlier occasion, rejected his application. As against the same, the petitioner-defendant carried the matter in appeal in C.M.A.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. Even the first appellate court, with reference to the docket proceedings, recorded a finding that no sufficient reason was shown to set aside the ex parte decree. In this revision petition, it is contended by Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that on the earlier occasion, on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 CPC, suit proceedings were stayed; thereafter, respondents/plaintiffs carried the matter in revision before this Court and as there was no communication from the counsel on record, the petitioner could not pursue the matter. It is stated that as much as allowing the decree will result in great hardship to the petitioner, it is evidently a fit case to give him an opportunity by imposing some costs. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri M.P. Chandramouli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that although the suit is of the year 1994 and in spite of giving several opportunities, the petitioner did not pursue the matter and was not present on several occasions and though costs were imposed he did not pay the same and also did not pursue his case diligently. It is further submitted that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have recorded findings that there are no sufficient reasons to set aside the ex parte decree and hence there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Firstly, it is to be seen that the suit in question has been filed in the year 1994. The petitioner filed an application under Section 10 CPC in the said suit and obtained interim orders. It is the case of the petitioner that when the matter was carried in revision, he was not informed by the counsel on record about the proceedings. Having obtained interim orders, there is no reason for not pursuing the matter before this Court by the petitioner herein, in the revision petition filed by the respondents. It is to be noticed that, having filed the suit, the petitioner has not pursued the matter diligently and in spite of affording several opportunities, he did not appear before the Court. The matter was adjourned to 23-04- 2004 by imposing costs on 21-04-2004. Even on that day, costs were not paid and there was also no representation. As such, by adjourning the matter to 27-04-2004, the suit was decreed. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada and others[1], wherein it is held that application to set aside the ex parte decree must be liberally construed where defence is reasonable and non- appearance is not mala fide or intentional. In the said judgment, it is further held that Courts have wide discretion and thus expression must be construed as an elastic expression and no hard and fast guidelines can be prescribed. Even when the ratio in the judgment is applied to this case, except the ground that the petitioner was not aware of the orders in the revision petition before this court, there is no other reason stated by the petitioner. Hence, the said judgment is will be of no avail to the petitioner. If an individual having obtained orders under Section 10 CPC, on the ground that the issue in the suit is also pending in another suit, does not pursue the matter, there must be some plausible reason for not pursing the matter though the other side carried the matter under revision before this Court. But, no valid reason has been stated for not appearing in the matter. At the same time, having engaged an Advocate to represent his case, it is not open to the petitioner to plead that he was not aware of the proceedings. The Court below has given ample opportunity to the petitioner; in spite of the same, there was no representation on his behalf and he was called absent numerous times; as such, the Court below was constrained to record ex parte evidence and pass an ex parte decree. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree as confirmed by the first appellate court and thus there are no valid reasons to interfere with the same, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The revision petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances without any order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) November 15, 2010 MRR [1] (2000) 3 SCC 54