HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P. No. 434 of 2009 Order: This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Visakhapatnam made in I.A. No. 1082 of 2008 in I.A. No.787 of 2008 in A.S No.157 of 2007. The petitioner filed I.A. No.1082 of 2008 under Order 41 Rule 19 and under Section 151 of C.P.C. before the Court below seeking to set aside the order of dismissal dated 29.9.2008 made in I.A. No. 787 of 2008 and to restore the same to file. The Court below, by the order impugned in this revision, dismissed the said I.A. holding thus: “Heard petitioner. No representation by respondents. Direction in the main A.S. No. 157 of 2007, dt. 10.4.2008 was not complied. On 15.9.2008, this court granted time to this petitioner to submit their arguments on or before 29.9.2008. But not complied in the I.A. 787/2008 restoration petition. At this stage they filed petition under Order 41 Rule 19 r/w 151 CPC. Perused the petition averments. Already sufficient time and opportunity was given to the petitioner. Hence this petition is dismissed.” Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner filed the present I.A for setting aside the default order, which was passed for non-compliance of the direction dated 10.4.2008 given in the main A.S. No. 157 of 2007, and even though the junior of the petitioner’s counsel , who was present in the Court sought for passing over of the matter on account of the fact that his senior was engaged in another Court, the Court below without taking into consideration the said submission, dismissed the I.A. by the impugned order. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the impugned order, I am of the view that the Court below ought to have heard the petitioner before dismissing the I.A. and it ought not to have dismissed the I.A. on the ground of technicalities. Under the circumstances, I feel it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the Court below for deciding the I.A afresh. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court below with a direction to dispose of I.A. No. 1082 of 2008 afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J Date: 25th June, 2010 pnb