THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.3593 of 2010 Date:13.12.2010 Between: D.Appa Rao …………Petitioner. And P.Bangarayya ………..Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.3593 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.6.2010 passed in I.A.No.284 of 2009 in O.S.No.272 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at S.Kota, Vizianagaram District. The respondent/plaintiff is the revision petitioner. On 2.11.2007, when the suit came up for consideration, the counsel for the defendant, who was busy in drafting some petitions in some other matters, could not file vakalath and the Court below set the defendant exparte by passing an exparte order dated 2.12.2007. Subsequently, a petition was filed on 22.10.2007 by the respondent to set aside the exparte decree, but in fact the exparte decree was passed on 21.2.2008. The learned trial Court allowed the petition on the ground that on 22.10.2007 i.e., on the very same day, he was set exparte, the defendant filed the petition under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC to set aside the exparte order, but the said petition was not put up before the Bench by the concerned clerk and subsequently an exparte decree was also passed on 21.2.2008. The learned trial Court considering the fact that a petition to set aside the exparte order was filed by the respondent at appropriate time and due to over sight, it was not placed before the presiding officer of the Court, which resulted passing of exparte decree on 21.2.2008 and therefore allowed the petition and had set aside the exparte decree. The contention of the revision petitioner is the same, which was put forth before the trial Court. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that since the petition was originally filed to set aside the exparte order under Order 9, Rule 7 and subsequently it was converted into a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 to set aside the exparte decree by making some corrections, the learned trial Court ought to have dismissed the petition. I Absolutely see, no force in the contention, the trial Court categorically mentioned in the order that though a petition to set aside the exparte order filed in time, the decree was passed owing to the negligence of the office staff, who did not place the said application before the Presiding Officer of the Court at appropriate time. Moreover, nothing has been pointed out by the leaned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner indicating that any prejudice has been caused to him by setting aside the exparte order decree and there is no dispute about the fact that at the earliest, the respondent filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC to set aside the exparte order had the said petition been placed before the Court at appropriate time, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the same and the question of passing exparte decree in such an event, would not have arisen at all. For the forgoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the learned trial Court and I also do not find that any prejudice was caused to the revision petitioner. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Date:13.12.2010 mrb