THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P. No.2907 OF 2009 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order of dismissal passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool in I.A.No.98 of 2009 in O.S.No.3 of 2004 filed for reopening of the said suit. 2 Brief facts are that the petitioners and the fist respondent belong to a joint Hindu family and they acquired certain properties. But however, on account of certain disputes between themselves, the first respondent herein instituted the suit for partition of the suit schedule properties and to put him in possession of his share. The said suit was instituted as early as in the year 2004. In the said suit the sixth respondent herein got himself as the fifth defendant and he is also contesting the said suit. According to him, the entire land in question was sold to him by way of a registered sale deed. It is only to defeat his rights, in collusion with each other the said suit was set up. Further, it is sated that sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioners herein and the suit was adjourned on a number of occasions only for the purpose of adducing evidence, but the petitioners have not availed the said opportunity. The court below having considered the material on record refused to reopen the suit and hence the present revision. 3 Heard the counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the first respondent and the counsel for the sixth respondent. 4 From a perusal of the order it is clear that the petitioners were given sufficient opportunity. In fact at para No.5 of the order impugned it is clearly stated that the suit was posted on number of occasions during the months of August and September 2008 and the petitioners have not taken advantage of the situation. If that alone is to be taken into consideration it is true that the petitioners are not entitled for any diligence. But it should be remembered that it is a suit for partition wherein substantive rights are involved. Of course, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the sixth respondent that the said suit has been set up only to defeat his rights, but that aspect has to be decided by the trial court in the said suit. As this court is of the view that when substantive rights are involved, instead of deciding the same on technical grounds, it is always desirable to have a detailed hearing. 5 Accordingly this revision is allowed, the order impugned in this revision is hereby set aside and the petitioners are given one more opportunity, however, on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the District Legal Services Authority, Mehaboobnagar within a period of four weeks from today. On ascertaining that the said costs of Rs.1,000/- have been paid, the court below may reopen the suit, fix a date for adducing evidence on behalf of the petitioners herein and thereafter proceed with the suit in accordance with law. As it is contended by the learned counsel for the sixth respondent that the entire evidence is over and the suit is coming up for arguments, the court below, after affording an opportunity to the petitioners for adducing evidence on their side, may decide the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ------------------- 16.02.2010 kvsn