HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2805 of 2009 7th April 2010 Between: Andhavarapu Varaha Naasimham … PETITIONER(S) and Rudra Enterprises, Peddapadu Road, Srikakulam, represented by its Managing Partner Bheri Nagabhushana Rao and others … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2805 of 2009 ORDER: The order under challenge, in this Revision proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, in I.A.No.477 of 2009 in O.S.No.425 of 2007 whereby the petition filed for re-opening of the Suit, for the purpose of adducing evidence, was dismissed on the ground that, in the suit, the defendant had already taken six adjournments for one reason or the other; a conditional order was passed on 25.03.2009, and costs were imposed thrice on 01.04.2009, 08.05.2009 and 08.06.2009, and on 19.06.2009 as the defendant in the suit had not paid the costs; his claim that he had wrongly noted the adjournment date as 29.06.2009 was a submission made only for the purpose of the petition; even on 19.06.2009 the matter was kept aside till 3.30 P.M. and, as there was no representation and as already six adjournments had been granted earlier, the petition was dismissed. Sri K.V.Subrahmanya Narusu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner-defendant cannot be made to suffer for a mistake on the part of his counsel in wrongly noting the date of adjournment; while adjournments had been sought earlier, the defendant would ensure that no further adjournment would be sought; and he would proceed with the suit without further delay. Sri G.V.S.Ganesh, learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that the very fact that the petitioner had sought several adjournments, and costs were imposed on him thrice earlier, was itself proof that the endeavour of the petitioner- defendant was only to drag on proceedings; and the order of the Court below did not suffer from any infirmity necessitating interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While the order of the Court below cannot be faulted in as much as the petitioner-defendant had repeatedly sought adjournments earlier, and had suffered imposition of costs thrice in the past, it must also be borne in mind that the Suit is of the year 2007 and dismissal of the I.A. is on 22.06.2009 within two years from the date of filing of the Suit. The Suit is not so old as to necessitate dismissal of the I.A. filed to re-open the Suit for the purpose of adducing evidence on behalf of the defendant. Recording the submission of Sri K.V.Subrahmanya Narusu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, that henceforth no delay would be caused on account of the defendant, I consider it appropriate to set aside the order of the Court below and re-open the Suit for the purpose of adducing evidence to the extent the petitioner-defendant is concerned, subject to the condition that he pays costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the first respondent-plaintiff within four weeks from today and adduces evidence on the next date of hearing, failing which the order of the Court below shall stand revived. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 7th April 2010 CVRK