THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4828 of 2009 Date: 15-10-2009 Between Garikapati Venkatewara Rao … Petitioner/ Appellant/Defendant and Gadde Panakalu … Respondent/ Respondent/Plaintiff THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4828 of 2009 Oral Order: Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant and Sri Ravi Kumar Tolety, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 17-8-2009, in C.M.A.No.43 of 2008, passed by the V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna district, wherein and whereby the order and decree, dated 06-8- 2008, in I.A.No.516 of 2007 in O.S.No.759 of 2006, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada dismissing the said application filed by the defendant under Order IX, Rule 13 and Section 151 of CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte order, dated 03-7-2007 and to permit him to contest the suit, were confirmed. 3. Perused the order passed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court, by the impugned judgment, which is being impugned herein. From the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application before the trial Court, it appears that the defendant could not be present on the date of hearing, as a result, after giving some opportunities, the trial Court passed a n ex parte decree against him and subsequently, he filed the present application seeking restoration of the suit. 4. The grounds raised by the defendant in the said application are that he was undergoing treatment for a serious ailment pertaining to liver. It appears that his liver was totally damaged owing to development of a tumour inside. Some Certificates also appear to have been presented before the trial Court, but the trial Court having gone through those certificates, had observed that for a particular period there was no proof in order to show that he was undergoing treatment. 5. At the outset, I am of the view that those observations made by the trial Court are totally unkind in nature. When obviously the defendant was suffering from a serious aliment, at every stage it may not be possible to obtain certificates from the doctors. Certain things would speak for themselves. In the present case, the nature of the ailment, which is very serious in nature, speaks for itself and the trauma and the agonies suffered by the defendant during that period and in that traumatic conditions when he was placed in, it is very difficult to explain him the delay for each and every day or for a particular period. 6. The trial Court ought to have perceived certain things from the record available and in the instant case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to allow the interlocutory application filed by the defendant. The trial Court, in my considered view, had taken the condition of the defendant very lightly, which ought not to have happened. 7. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances, I feel it expedient to allow the revision petition, however, with costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to be paid to the plaintiff within 4 (four) weeks from today. In default, the order passed by the trial Court would automatically stands restored. 8. At this stage, both the learned Counsel represented that the suit had almost come to an end completing the trial, except cross-examination of D.W.1. 9. If that be so, I feel it expedient to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably on priority basis, subject to the cooperation of both the parties. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed, at the stage of admission, subject to the above observations and directions, and the impugned judgment passed by the lower appellate Court as well as the order passed by the trial Court are set aside. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 15th October, 2009. Ak