THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3886 OF 2009 DATED:07.07.2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 21.07.2009, in I.A.No.740 of 2009 in O.S.No.60 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-2nd defendant. None appeared for the 1st respondent-plaintiff though served with summons. Perused the records. 3. 1st respondent filed the suit for recovery of certain amount, allegedly due from the petitioner-2nd defendant and another. The matter stood posted to 13.08.2003 for filing written statement. As the written statement was not filed, petitioner-2nd defendant was set ex parte. Subsequently, he filed I.A.No.1072 of 2003 for setting aside the ex parte order. Along with the said application, petitioner-2nd defendant filed his written statement also. The said application was allowed on payment of costs of Rs.25/-. As the costs were not paid, the said application was dismissed for default. Later, petitioner filed the present I.A.No.740 of 2009 for setting aside the default dismissal order. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the reason mentioned in the affidavit, filed in support of the application, is contrary to the one mentioned in the affidavit filed in I.A.No.1072 of 2003. In the earlier application, petitioner stated that he cannot contact the Advocate in time as he has gone to Hyderabad, whereas in the present affidavit, filed in support of I.A.No.740 of 2009, it is stated that he was bedridden due to fever. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to contest the suit as the ex parte order was already set aside, subject to payment of costs. 5. Though the conduct of the petitioner in taking different stands in the two applications, while furnishing the reasons for his absence, cannot be appreciated, still in view of the fact that the petitioner-2nd defendant has already filed his written statement and ex parte order was directed to be set aside on payment of costs, it is considered that opportunity can be given to the petitioner to contest the suit to have the matter disposed of on merits. In that view of the matter, the impugned order, dismissing I.A.No.740 of 2009, is set aside and consequently, the said application stands allowed, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.1000/- ( rupees one thousand only) to the 1st respondent-plaintiff within a period of two weeks from today and in default, the impugned order, dismissing I.A.No.740 of 2009, shall remain unchanged. 6. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th July, 2011. Tsy