THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1939 of 2004 ORDER: The respondent filed I.P.No.21 of 2001 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. The petitioner was shown as respondent No.2 in that. She was set ex parte on 30.11.2001 and the I.P. itself was decreed on 11.12.2001. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the ex parte order in the I.P. Since there is a delay of 165 days, she filed I.A.No.171 of 2002 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, stating that on receiving notice in the I.P., she entrusted the papers as well as Vakalat to her son for handing over the same to their Advocate, who was pursuing O.S.No.111 of 1997 and on account of misplacement of the same, appearance was not entered. The application was opposed by the respondent. Through its order, dated 08.01.2004, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri M.P.Chandramouli, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was sent to the respondent, it was endorsed that he left the place. No further steps need to be taken at this stage, particularly, having regard to the fact that no final adjudication is taking place. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she filed O.S.No.111 of 1997 against the respondent for recovery of certain amount and not only the suit was decreed, but also E.P.No.33 of 2000 filed therein was ordered on 03.10.2001. The respondent is said to have filed the I.P. after the E.P. was ordered only with a view to circumvent the liability. The petitioner was, no doubt, served with notice. However, the effort to engage an Advocate did not fructify, on account of misplacement of the papers. It is not as if the I.P. was pending for years or decades and the petitioner approached after lapse of long time. Hardly within few months, after it came to be filed, the I.P. was disposed of. The valuable rights that have accrued to the petitioner on the strength of the decree in O.S.No.111 of 1997 cannot be permitted to be defeated in such a casual manner. Further, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, if an opportunity was given to the petitioner. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.171 of 2002 is allowed and to avoid delay and complication in the matter, it is directed that the ex parte order, dated 11.12.2001, in I.P.No.21 of 2001 shall stand set aside. The trial Court shall proceed to dispose of the matter on merits, after ensuring the presence of the respondent and other contesting parties. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.08.2009 kdl