IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5017 OF 2010 Between: Pidaparthi Bulli Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND Poda Murali Krishna and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5017 OF 2010 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.124 of 2001 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parchur, against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 28.07.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed A.S.No.21 of 2004 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Parchur. The appeal was dismissed on 06.01.2007. The petitioner filed I.A.No.157 of 2007 in the lower appellate Court, under Order XLI Rule 19 CPC, with a prayer to readmit the appeal. The I.A. was dismissed on 06.03.2009 on the ground that the appeal was dismissed on merits and the application under Order XLI Rule 19 CPC is not maintainable. Hence, this revision. Sri G. Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that on 06.01.2007 there was no representation either for the petitioner or for the 1st respondent before the lower appellate Court and once the appeal was dismissed without hearing the parties, the dismissal has to be treated as the one for default. He submits that the lower appellate Court was not justified in dismissing the I.A. The petitioner is under the impression that the appeal was dismissed for default. However, a perusal of the judgment discloses that the merits of the matter were discussed in detail, in the judgment running into 14 pages. At the threshold of the judgment it is mentioned that it is rendered after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent was set ex parte and as of now he has no grievance. Therefore, the view taken by the lower appellate Court in dismissing the I.A., filed under Order XLI Rule 19 CPC, is correct. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. If the petitioner is so advised, he has to avail the remedy of Second Appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J August 03, 2011 MD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5017 OF 2010 August 03, 2011 MD