IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 5156 OF 2009 Between: Ragala Venkata Rathnam S/o R. Lakshmaiah .....petitioner AND Pedipina Ramanaiah S/o P.Ramaiah .....RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, directed against an order made in I.A. No. 253 of 2009 in E.O.P.No. 8 of 2006 dated 12.10.2009 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore District, where under the petition filed under Section 151 CPC, seeking relief to reopen the matter and permit the petitioner to adduce further evidence, was dismissed. There is no necessity of going into all the details. In fact, when the said I.A.No. 253 of 2009 in E.O.P.No. 8 of 2006 was dismissed earlier i.e., by an order dated 17.3.2009, the petitioner herein filed Civil Revision Petition No. 1350 of 2009 before this Court. The said Civil Revision Petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 17.3.2009 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the lower Court to look into the docket entries and make an appropriate order. This order was passed by the Court in view of the fact that earlier I.A was dismissed having noticed that though batta was paid notices were not sent by the Office. Now recording the same events occurred prior to the passing of the order dated 17.3.2009, this petition is again dismissed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial court has not appreciated the order passed by the court on 17.3.2009 and has not approached the issue with an open mind and recorded events happened prior to 17.3.2009 and dismissed the application, though this Court wanted the court to look into docket entries and make an appropriate order. I am of the opinion, the trial court has erroneously passed the impugned order without properly appreciating the facts. It is on record that on 26.11.2008 the following order was passed, which reads as under: “Notice not yet returned. By mistake batta not send in proper time by pressure of work . Warned to clerk concerned, and endorsement was made issue the same batta by 4.12.2008”. In spite of such an entry recorded, it is unfortunate that the Court below in spite of an opportunity given by this Court, dismissed the application mechanically. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that Civil Revision Petition is liable to be allowed and accordingly, allowed and I.A.No. 253 of 2009 is accordingly ordered. However, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore is directed to dispose of the OP, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ C. V. RAMULU,J DATE: 11.11.2009. KA .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies