THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.253 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against a docket order dated 12.11.2009 passed in I.A.No.1101 of 2009 in O.S.No.3 of 2006 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Nellore, whereby the application filed by defendant No.1, the petitioner herein, seeking to afford him an opportunity of hearing his case and permission to appoint another advocate to defend his case, was closed with certain observations. Respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff, whereas the petitioner and respondent No.2 herein are the defendants in the suit being O.S.No.3 of 2006 laid before the Court below, for recovery of an amount of Rs.12,56,219/-, and the same is pending. Since the petitioner/defendant No.1 failed to file the written statement, in spite of affording several adjournments, and was called absent, he was set ex parte on 31.07.2006. Thereafter, after adducing evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant No.2, the evidence was closed. When the matter is coming up for arguments, the petitioner has come up with the present application, which is taken up as I.A.No.1101 of 2009, stating that since his counsel has been informing him that the suit did not reach the stage of trial, he could not approach the Court and submit his stand in time and, therefore, he seeks to afford him an opportunity of hearing his case and also to permit him to engage another counsel to defend his case. The Court below, having found no reasons to allow the petitioner to file written statement at a belated stage, closed the petition with certain observations, by the impugned order dated 12.11.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1. Heard the learned counsel on either side. A perusal of the impugned order would clearly show that though the petitioner was represented by an Advocate, no written statement was filed, in spite of granting several adjournments. In view of the same and as he was called absent, the Court below set him ex parte on 31.07.2006 and thereafter taken up the trial proceedings and completed the same. While the matter is coming up for arguments, the petitioner came up with the present application. The Court below, having found that the petitioner has not assigned any reasonable grounds for not filing the written statement, except taking a plea that his advocate was telling him that the suit did not reach the stage of trial, and that the ex parte order dated 31.07.2006 is not set aside, by the impugned order dated 12.11.2009 closed the petition, with an observation that as the petitioner is a party to the suit, he has got every right to address his arguments and, in case he wants to do so, he is at liberty to address the arguments in Court in-person. Admittedly, the petitioner was set ex parte on 31.07.2006 and the same is not set-aside. However, in view of the fact that heavy stakes are involved in the matter, I deem it appropriate that the matter be decided on merits, by giving opportunity to the parties, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.11.2009 is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, on condition the petitioner deposits half of the suit amount in two instalments i.e., Rs.3,00,000/- within two weeks from today, as the first instalment, and the rest of the amount within two weeks thereafter, as the second instalment. In default, the order of this Court stands cancelled, and the Court below is at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Further, it is made clear that the written statement of the petitioner shall be received by the Court below only after the first instalment, as directed above, is paid, and it is desirable for the Court below to dispose of the suit at an early date. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 23.02.2010 Note: Issue CC in three days Bo v v