THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.25797 OF 2009 ORDER: The order under challenge in this Writ Petition is the order of the Joint Collector, Karimnagar dated 18.08.2009, whereby the petitioner’s revision was dismissed both on the ground of non- representation of their Counsel and on merits. With regards failure on the part of the petitioner’s Counsel to appear before him, the Joint Collector records in his order dated 18.08.2009 that the hearing of the case was held on 24.01.2009 when the petitioner or their advocate was not there; the petitioner’s advocate had sent his junior to seek adjournment; the case was adjourned to 21.02.2009, and was thereafter posted for hearing on 18.07.2009; on that date also neither the petitioner nor her advocate attended the hearing. On merits, the Joint Collector observes that, after hearing the respondents, it was concluded that the revision petitioner did not produce any evidence in support of her claim. While failure on the part of the petitioner’s counsel on more than one occasion may well justify the Joint Collector dismissing the revision, the fact remains that the dispute relates to an extent of Ac.1.07 cts which the petitioner claims to be the owner of, and which the respondent claim as belonging to them. While the Joint Collector has not assigned any reasons why he had come to the conclusion that the revision was liable to be dismissed on merits, taking into account that the absence of the petitioner’s Counsel was on two occasions. I consider it appropriate to set aside the order under revision on terms. On condition that the petitioner herein pays Rs.5,000/- to the 4th respondent within three weeks from today, and produces proof of payment before the 1st respondent, the impugned order is set aside. The 1st respondent shall proceed to hear the revision afresh, and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from today. In case proof of payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- is not filed before the 1st respondent within three weeks from today, the impugned order would stand revived, and it would be open to the respondents thereafter to take necessary action in accordance with law. Needless to mention that, in case the 1st respondent is of the view that the petitioner is again resorting to dilatory tactics, it is open to him to pass necessary orders in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Date: 08.11.2011 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR