IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5958 of 2008 BETWEEN Sri Bekkanti Veeraiah. …PETITIONER AND Smt. Bekkanti Radhamma. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. A. JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent: MR. KOWTURI VINAYA KUMAR The Court made the following: - ORDER: Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.86 of 1993 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam. An application for review being I.A.No.1024 of 2007 was filed together with an application for condonation of delay. The said application for condonation of delay was earlier rejected by the trial Court but was allowed by this Court in CRP.No.6529 of 2006 dated 15.06.2007 and direction was given to the Court below to hear and decide the review application on its own merits. Under the impugned order dated 06.11.2008, the review petition has been dismissed by the Court below on the ground that against the impugned decree of the trial Court, the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Khammam and in view of the pendency of the said appeal, the Court below was of the view that the review application is not maintainable. 2. Last time when the matter was heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner took time to get instructions as to the date of filing of the appeal and she now informs that though the present review petition was filed in July 2002, the appeal was filed on 06.05.2003 together with an application for condonation of delay. It appears that the said appeal was dismissed in default and the restoration application is now pending. In any case, it is clear that review petition was filed much earlier to filing of the appeal, in which case, there is no impediment for entertainment of review petition and the subsequent filing of the appeal would not come in the way of consideration of review petition on its own merits. The impugned order also cannot be sustained for another reason viz. this Court in CRP.No.6529 of 2006 dated 15.06.2007 had already directed the Court below to hear and decide the review application on its own merits. However, that order has not been given effect to. 3. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The Court below shall hear and decide I.A.No.1024 of 2007 on merits in accordance with law and decide the same within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent is at liberty to raise all his contentions against the review petition permissible under law. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 11, 2011 DSK