THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.5776/2008 Date of Order: 25-4-2011 Between: Merugu Venkateswara Rao ..Petitioner and 1.M. Babu Rao and others. ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.5776/2008 Oral order: The defendant in OS No.1485/2002 is in revision filed against the orders of the Rent Controller-cum- IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada dt. 28-8-2008 dismissing IA No.140/2008 in IA No.916/2006 in OS No.1485/2002 filed to condone the delay of 171 days and to restore the petition filed to set-aside the ex parte decree vide IA No.916/2006. In the suit filed for recovery of the amount due under the pronote, the petitioner/defendant filed a written statement. The said suit was dismissed for default on 12-6-2003. On dismissal of the suit, on petition filed by the sole respondent/plaintiff, the suit was restored to file without notice to the petitioner/defendant. Later, the suit was decreed ex parte on 24-10-2005 for not filing the written statement. To set-aside the ex parte decree dt. 24-10-2005, the petitioner/defendant filed IA No.916/2006 under Order 9 rule 13 CPC along with the written statement stating that the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed for default on 12-6-2003 and the same was restored without notice to him and he was under the impression that the suit was dismissed. In the said petition, notice was ordered to the plaintiff. For non-payment of process to the plaintiff, the petition was dismissed on 27-8-2007. Thereafter, another petition was filed for restoration of IA No.916/2006 by recalling dismissal order passed on 27-8-2007 in IA N.916/2006. As there is a delay of 171 days in presenting petition to restore IA No.916/2006, the present petition is filed for condonation of delay of 171 days. On dismissal of the same, the present revision is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that when the suit, which was dismissed for default, was restored to file, no notice was given to the defendant. He further submits that as legal representatives of the sole plaintiff have to be brought on record, the delay was occurred and therefore, the trial court is not justified in dismissing the petition. Admittedly, in the petition filed by the plaintiff for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed for default, necessarily notice has to be served on the defendant. On restoring the suit and on passing ex parte decree, though the petitioner/defendant filed IA for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him, he has not taken any steps to serve the respondents/plaintiffs by paying process fee, and the said petition was dismissed on 27-8-2007 for non- compliance and another petition filed for restoration was not filed within time and was filed with a delay condonation petition. To make sure that petitioner/defendant should be diligent in prosecuting the petition, certain conditions have to be imposed for condonation of delay. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, on petitioner/defendant depositing entire suit costs and 1/4th of suit amount together with interest within four weeks from to-day, delay of 171 days is condoned. In default, revision shall stand dismissed. On deposit of the amount, as ordered above, the plaintiff or his legal representatives, are entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.25-4-2011 kmr