THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6001 of 2009 DT.1.4. 2011 Between: Syndicate Bank … Petitioner And Vegunta Venkateswara Rao and others … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A Krishnam Raju Counsel for respondent No. 1 : Sri M Govind Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6001 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is filed questioning the order dated 9.11.2009 in I.A.No. 1239 of 2009 in O.S. No. 449 of 2004 on the fileof VII Additional District Judge, Visakapatnam, dismissing the application filed under section 151 of CPC seeking to reopen the matter for the purpose of adducing evidence of D4. The revision petitioner is defendant no.4/Syndicate Bank. The first respondent herein is plaintiff who filed a suit in O S No. 449 of 2004 against the respondents 2 to 4 herein and the revision petitioner, for recovery of money based on a demand promissory note. Since the defendants 1 to 3 did not adduce evidence they were set exparte. Thereupon, the revision petitioner/4th respondent filed an application to reopen the matter for adducing evidence, which was dismissed by the order under revision dated 9.11.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that as bank has already initiated the recovery proceedings against the loanee M/s. Maruthi Adds Private Limited as well as the guarantors who are respondents 2 to 4 herein, the bank has filed O.A. No. 83 of 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and obtained a decree against which the plaintiff herein filed a third party claim before the Recovery Officer, which was dismissed , against which he filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which was also dismissed, against which W.P. No. 11916 of 2009 was filed and the same was withdrawn with liberty to agitate his rights in the pending suit. The case of the petitioner is that the defendants 1 to 3 who are respondents 2 to 4 have remained ex-parte and the case was posted for the evidence of defendant no.4/revision petitioner on 6.10.2004 and all the records were sent to Hyderabad to defend the interest of the bank in the writ petition, as such evidence could not be adduced on its behalf, therefore an application in I.A.No. 1239 of 2009 in O.S.No. 449 of 2004 was filed for reopening the matter for the purpose of evidence of defendant no.4, which was dismissed by order under revision dated 9.11.2009 on the ground that there was no representation by both parties on 15.9.2009, and 6.10.2009 as such the defendant evidence was closed. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and Mr M Govind Reddy learned counsel appearing for first respondent/plaintiff and perused the material available on record. The Court below has dismissed the application on the sole ground that there was no representation on 15.9.2009 and 6.10.2009. Whether the surety given by the respondents 2 to 4 in favour of the bank is a valid surety or not and whether the suit schedule property was already mortgaged in favour of plaintiff are matters to be decided after completion of trial and the revision petitioner/defendant no.4 has shown reasonable cause for not adducing evidence inasmuch as the record was sent to Hyderabad in connection with connected writ petition on the file of the High Court, as such, it cannot be said that the revision petitioner/4th defendant is negligent in adducing its evidence and Court below ought to have afforded an opportunity to the defendant bank to adduce its evidence. In the circumstances, the order under revision dated 9.11.2009 is set aside and I A No. 1239 of 2009 stands allowed. The revision petitioner/4th defendant shall complete its evidence within 8 weeks from the next date of hearing fixed by the Court below. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. No costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 1.4.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6001 of 2009 DT.1.4. 2011