IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2197 & 4486 OF 2006 Between: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2197 OF 2006 M/s. Jai Kanaka Duga & Company, Rep. by its Managing Partner, T. Prabhakar. - - - Petitioner/ Plaintiff. AND The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Warangal. - - - Respondent/ Defendant. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2197 & 4486 OF 2006 COMMON ORDER: Both the revisions arose out of the orders in I.A. No.371 of 2005 and I.A. No.480 of 2005 respectively on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC) Warangal passed in O.S. No.310 of 2003. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed for recovery of the money and the suit was dismissed for default on 06-05-2005. Subsequently, the revision petitioner herein has filed I.A. No.211 of 2005 for restoration of the suit and the learned Senior Civil Judge, passed an order on 17-10-2005 restoring the suit on payment of costs of Rs.500/- and on further condition of filing of the chief- affidavit of the plaintiff on 20-10-2005 failing which, the order passed in I.A. No.211 of 2005 stands dismissed. Subsequently, it appears, the petitioner has paid the costs of Rs.500/- which is a contribution of Rs.250/- to the D.L.S.A. Warangal and Rs.250/- to the counsel for the respondent. However, the petitioner did not file the chief affidavit as directed by the Court and consequently I.A. No.211 of 2005 was dismissed. Thereafter, I.A. 480 of 2005 was filed to condone the delay of 15 days in filing the chief-affidavit as per the conditional order and also to restore the suit, which was dismissed in I.A. No.371 of 2005. The learned Senior Civil Judge, dismissed both the applications finding that they are not maintainable. The point for consideration is whether the orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, are legal and sustainable? Evidently, the Court has ordered restoration of the suit finding that there is a valid ground in non-appearance on the date when the suit was posted for trial. The party was also compensated by payment of costs for default. However, the further condition imposed by the lower Court on the part of filing of the chief evidence affidavit being not complied with, the consequences have followed. The question is whether the order of the Court in imposing further condition of filing of the chief affidavit can be termed as reasonable and the failure thereto can be taken as a serious one to deny the relief to the petitioner? Evidently, in case of the trial of the suit, the presence of the parties is necessary and the filing of the affidavit will not do any furtherance of the trial. Even if the affidavit is filed on the date of hearing as ordered by the Court without the presence of the plaintiff, the suit would not have been proceeded further. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the condition imposed by the lower Court that the consequences of non-filing of the affidavit would deny the relief already granted by accepting the reason for non-appearance, negatives the very purpose of the order. Therefore, the lower Court has not properly exercised the discretion in dismissing the applications and in view of the interest of the justice and for giving a fair opportunity to the parties, the orders are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I.A. No.480 of 2005 rejecting condoning the delay for non-filing of the affidavit and consequently dismissing the suit are set aside. The lower Court is directed to take on file the suit and directed to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order without any further delay. Accordingly, the civil revision petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. Dt.14-12-2010. DSH