HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:287 of 2010 Dated: 29.6.2010 Between: Shaik Habibuddin Ali Ahmed. ..PETITIONER Vs. 1. Gopal Sharma & others. .. RESPONDENTS HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:287 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-2nd defendant in the suit in O.S.No:55 of 2006 on the file of the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. The aforesaid suit is filed by the 1st respondent herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,32,500/-. On behalf of the petitioner, none appeared. On the ground that written statement was not filed, he was set exparte on 24.10.2006. The present application is filed in I.A.544 of 2009 to set aside the exparte order. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that on 24.10.2006, he was not in the station and as such, he was set exparte and subsequently, the 1st defendant promised to settle the matter as that claim pertains to him and as such, no application was filed earlier seeking to set aside the exparte order on the aforesaid date. Before the Court below, the 1st respondent has filed the counter affidavit opposing the application. The impugned order is passed by the Court below by recording a finding that the petitioner approached the Court only after the evidence of P.w.1 was recorded, watching all the proceedings of the Court and to stall the proceedings only, this application is filed at the belated stage. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the 1st defendant in the suit was also set exparte and his application was allowed recently. It is further submitted that even in the present impugned order, no valid reasons are assigned for rejecting the plea of the petitioner. From the perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is clearly stated that as he was not in the station, he was set exparte on 24.10.2006 and further plea of the petitioner is that there was an assurance by the 1st defendant in the suit to settle the matter. Though counter affidavit is filed stating that there is no material except the said pleas, but there is no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the petitioner on oath to the effect that the 1st defendant assured him about the settlement because the claim made by the 1st respondent-plaintiff is against the 1st defendant. It appears that though there is some delay, but in view of the reasons stated by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that it is evidently a fit case to allow the petition to give a chance to the petitioner to contest the proceedings by compensating the 1st respondent-plaintiff by costs. It is also to be noted that the petitioner already filed written statement along with this application in I.A.544 of 2009. For the aforesaid reasons and taking into account that the trial is just commenced by examining P.w.1, I deem it appropriate to allow the C.R.P and to set aside the impugned order in I.A.No:544 of 2009 in O.S.No:55 of 2006 on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) within a period of 4 (four) Weeks from today. Such costs shall be deposited to the credit of the suit in O.S.No:55 of 2006 and on such deposit, the 1st respondent-plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. This civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 20.10.2009 passed in I.A.No:544 of 2009 in O.S.No:55 of 2006 is set aside. Consequently, I.A.544 of 2009 stands allowed subject to the condition recorded above. __________________________ Justice R. Subhash Reddy Dated: 29.6.2010 Gurc. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:287 of 2010 29.6.2010