THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A. No.852 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The respondents filed O.S.No.51 of 1996 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar against the appellants for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties held by late N.Gangadhar. Appellant No.1 is the wife and appellant No.2 is the son of late Gangadhar. Respondent No.1 also pleaded that she married Gangadhar and through him, she begot respondent Nos.2 and 3. The appellants filed a written statement denying the allegations. The suit was posted for trial on 22.02.2000. On that day, P.W.1 was examined. On the ground that he was not cross-examined, the evidence of the respondents i.e. the plaintiffs was closed and the evidence on the side of the appellants was also closed. An ex parte preliminary decree was passed on the same day. The appellants filed I.A.No.158 of 2000 under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree. It was pleaded that their counsel informed that their presence is not necessary on 22.02.2000 and when the evidence of P.W. 1 was being recorded, he was engaged in another Court. The application was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 28.02.2001. Hence, this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. The suit filed by the respondents was the one for partition and separate possession. There is a serious dispute as to the very relationship of the parties as well as their entitlement to the suit schedule properties. It is not as if the disposal of the suit was held up on account of the lack of cooperation on the part of the appellants herein. The suit became ready for trial only in November, 1999. Three months thereafter, it was listed for the evidence of P.W.1. On that date itself, the evidence of P.W.1 was recorded and on the ground that there is no representation for the appellants, the evidence on behalf of the respondents was closed and an ex parte preliminary decree was passed. The approach of the trial Court is totally untenable. A suit for partition ought not to have been dealt with in such a casual and callous manner. The I.A. was filed within one week from the date of dismissal of the suit. The learned Presiding Officer has chosen to dismiss the I.A. on the same day. It appears that he wanted to avoid the burden of deciding the suit on merits and to go on easy way of deciding the matter ex parte. This Court granted interim stay way back on 29.03.2001. The appellants deserve to be given an opportunity to participate in the suit. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.158 of 2000 is allowed and the ex parte decree, dated 22.02.2000, is set aside. The trial Court shall commence the trial and decide the matter on merits. The appellants shall make themselves available on the next date of hearing itself for cross-examining P.W.1 and to adduce their evidence. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:26.08.2009 kdl