THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3381 OF 2011 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2011. BETWEEN: NEMALA VEERABHADRA RAO .. PETITIONER AND SAMPANGI SUBBALAXMI AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3381 OF 2011 O R D E R : The revision petitioner is the 10th defendant in O.S.No.59 of 2006, a suit for partition of the schedule properties. I.A.No.222 of 2011 was filed under Or.18 Rule 3 (A) and Section 151 of CPC, by D9 to D19 (including the revision petitioner), to permit them to examine D8 in the first instance, before D9 to D19 are examined. His application was resisted by the plaintiff/R1 herein, inter alia, by contending that D8 was set exparte by the lower court by an order dated 10.7.1997; the said defendant along with D9 to D19 filed I.A.No.103 of 2011 seeking to set aside the ex parte order passed against D8, to enable him to participate in the suit proceedings by adopting the written statement filed on behalf of D9 to D12; that I.A.No.103 of 2011 was however dismissed, against which no revision was preferred; and the said order having become final, D8 could not participate in further suit proceedings including by way of tendering oral evidence. The court below while not holding and rightly, that since D8 was set ex parte he was disentitled to participate in the suit proceedings by way of tendering evidence; nevertheless rejected the application on the ground that in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.222 of 2011 the revision petitioner did not specifically plead that they would marshal evidence by other defendants after the evidence of D8 was recorded. However, it is clear from paragraph No.2 of the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.222 of 2011 that the revision petitioner specifically stated that after D8 is examined the other defendants would be examined. The hyper technical construction put on I.A.No.222 of 2011 by the court below, is therefore not correct since the revision petitioner pleaded that the other witnesses for the defence would be examined after D8’s testimony is concluded. The provisions of Or.18 Rule 3 (A) are satisfied and the defendants should be permitted the discretion to adopt the strategies by which their defence must be presented before the court. On the aforesaid premises, the revision is allowed as well as I.A.No.222 of 2011, after hearing learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri.E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar and Sri.A.V.Seshasai, learned counsel for 1st respondent/plaintiff. There shall be no order as to costs. Dt: 02-09-2011. ( GODA RAGHURAM, J ) tnb THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3381 OF 2011 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2011. tnb