HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1976 of 2004 ORDER: At the instance of the petitioners, a reference was made to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The same was taken on record as L.O.P.No.80 of 1993. The trial Court closed the L.O.P. on certain grounds. The petitioners filed I.A.No.784 of 2001 under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the order in the L.O.P. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through its order, dated 06.08.2003, on the ground that the L.O.P. was not dismissed for default, but was closed on certain other grounds. It was also mentioned that if the petitioners feel aggrieved, they have to avail the remedy of appeal. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The petitioners reeled under the impression that the O.P. was dismissed for default. The observation made by the trial Court, however, discloses that the L.O.P. was not dismissed for default. On the other hand, it was mentioned that an order was passed after perusal of the record. Even assuming that the order passed by the trial Court is defective, the petitioners have to avail the remedy provided for under law. The petitioners did not file any copy of the order through which the L.O.P. was disposed of. Unless it is established that the L.O.P. was dismissed for default, an I.A. under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. cannot be maintained. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue the other remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:24.08.2009 kdl