HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 2578 OF 2010 Friday, the Eighteenth day of June, Two Thousand and Ten Between M.V.Nagaraj Petitioner AND P.S. Ramakrishna Reddy and another Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 2578 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC is filed by the first respondent in IA No. 464 of 2010, who is the plaintiff in the suit OS No. 109 of 2008 assailing the order dated 15.4.2010 passed by the learned I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing the petition filed under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 430 days in filling the petition to set aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 15.11.2008. The petitioner herein filed the above suit against the respondents for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.5.2005, which was decreed exparte on 15.11.2008 and E.P.No. 130 of 2008 came to be filed and the sale deed document No.86 of 2009 was executed in favour of the petitioner herein. It is the case of the first respondent/first defendant that he had no knowledge of the suit proceedings muchless about the execution of the sale deed. On his enquiry, he came to know that the petitioner herein has filed the above suit against him and second respondent, which was decreed exparte. Thus in the process there occurred a delay of 430 days in filing the present petition. The court below by the order impugned herein, has allowed the petition subject to the condition of the first respondent paying costs of Rs.500/- to the petitioner herein on or before 27.4.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the first respondent in the I.A. who is plaintiff in the suit. As can be seen from the order impugned, the first respondent herein is admittedly the owner of the suit schedule property and he has every right to contest the suit. The court below has observed that neither in the suit nor in the E.P., the first respondent was served with summons. In such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the court below is perfectly justified in observing that an opportunity has to be given to the first respondent – plaintiff to contest the suit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below has rightly allowed the petition, as no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner herein. Having gone through the entire material available on record, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari July 2, 2010 MAS