THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NO. 1574 OF 2007 Date of Judgment: 24.6.2011 Between: Arasavilli Apparao and another …Petitioners and Palli Vasudeva Rao ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NO. 1574 2007 ORDER: The petitioners herein are landlords. The respondent/tenant filed an application before the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam in A.T.C. No. 14 of 2000 seeking a declaration that he is a cultivating tenant of the petition schedule lands under the petitioners/landlords and consequential injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession over the said lands. The said application was contested by the petitioners/landlords, but it was allowed with costs by the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam by judgment dated 11.9.2001. Questioning the said judgment, ATA No. 17 of 2011 was filed before the District Judge and Appellate Authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, at Srikakulam. The said appeal has since been dismissed under the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2006. Hence this revision. I have heard counsel on either side. The learned counsel for the petitioners/landlords inter alia submits that the lower appellate court has delivered the impugned judgment in the absence of the petitioners/landlords. He relies upon the docket sheet proceedings of the lower appellate court to claim that on 22.11.2006 itself it was recorded as if the matter was heard and judgment was pronounced. He also relies upon an application filed under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code on 6.11.2006 in SR No. 5707 of 2006 before the lower appellate court seeking to send documents Exs.P1 to P4 to an expert for comparison with the admitted and specimen signatures of first petitioner/landlord and also for determination of ages of revenue stamps contained thereon. He submits that this application was returned with office objections on 15.11.2006 and it was represented on 22.11.2006. The affidavit filed in support of the said application also shows that the appeal was posted to 22.11.2006 for submission of arguments, but the appellants’ counsel was unable to submit the arguments, though it was recorded on the docket sheet proceedings that the matter was heard and judgment was pronounced. The endorsement of the counsel for the tenant on the application for reopening of the matter shows that he has opposed the said application as the matter was posted for judgment. All these proceedings are relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners/landlords to substantiate that the appellants’ counsel was, in fact, not heard and the appeal was dismissed on merits by the learned District Judge. It is contended that even if the appellants’ counsel was not present, the lower appellate court would have dismissed the appeal in default, but decided the appeal on merits which has clearly resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity to the appellants to argue their appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent/tenant, on instructions, verified from the counterpart in the court below and stated that the appellants’ counsel has, in fact, not argued the matter on merits. In these circumstances, without going into any other contentions raised by the petitioners/landlords, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and remit the appeal to the lower appellate court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, as the impugned judgment is clearly opposed to the provisions of Order 17, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The revision petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside and ATA No. 17 of 2001 is remitted to the lower appellate court for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law and the lower appellate court shall endeavour to decide the appeal, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 24.6.2011 KR