HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.4705 of 2009 Date:14.10.2009 Between: N. Muralidhar Pai … Petitioner And M/s. Andhra Bank, Begumpet, Secunderabad and another. … Respondents HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.4705 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Principal Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Secunderabad in I.A. No.213 of 2007 in O.S. No. 1385 of 2007, dated 3.8.2009, whereby and whereunder the I.A. filed by the 1st respondent was allowed. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff. It filed the aforementioned suit in O.S. No. 385 of 2007 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 79,034/- from the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein. It is stated that on 15.11.2007, when the matter came up for cross-examination of the witness on behalf of the 1st respondent-bank, due to non-appearance of the learned counsel appearing for the bank, the matter was dismissed for default. The 1st respondent, thereafter, filed I.A. No.213 of 2007 seeking to set aside the said order. The trial Court, on a perusal of the explanation offered by the 1st respondent, by the order impugned herein, allowed the said petition and restored the suit to file. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed present revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent has stated that his maternal uncle had expired on 6/11/2007 at Warangal and owing to the tenth day ceremony of his uncle, he could not appear before the trial Court on 15.11.2007 in time and requested his junior to seek for a pass over and the matter was accordingly passed over. He was informed that the matter would be taken up in the afternoon session. However, when he appeared along with the witness before the trial Court at 1.45 p.m. he was informed that the matter was dismissed for default. He further stated that his non- appearance was neither intentional nor wanton. Having perused the explanation offered by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-bank, I am quite satisfied that there is sufficient cause for his non-appearance on 15.11.2007 on which date, the trial Court passed the order of dismissal. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the same. Hence, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference. The revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 14th October, 2009 pnb