THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.Nos.5383 and 5636 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: In both these civil revision petitions, the parties are one and the same. Hence, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of common order. C.R.P.No.5383 of 2011 is filed against the order, dated 21-03-2011, passed in I.A.No.479 of 2011 in I.A.No.829 of 2010 in O.S.No.135 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Guntur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein seeking to grant two months time for complying the order, dated 14-02-2011 passed in I.A.No.829 of 2010, was dismissed. C.R.P.No.5636 of 2011 is filed against the order, dated 21-03-2011, passed in I.A.No.829 of 2010 in O.S.No.135 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Guntur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein seeking to set aside the dismissal of the suit on 10-06-2010 by restoring the suit O.S.No.135 of 2008 as well as I.A.No.707 of 2008 was dismissed. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.135 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Guntur, for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 22-02-2008, against the respondents herein. It is stated that the said suit was posted for cross- examination of the petitioner and as he could not appear before the court below, the suit was dismissed for default on 10-06-2010. To set aside the dismissal order, the petitioner filed I.A.No.829 of 2010 under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC and the said I.A. was allowed by order, dated 14-02-2011 subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing balance sale consideration on or before 14-03-2011. It is stated that the balance sale consideration of about Rs.13,50,000/- could not be deposited by 14-03-2011, pursuant to the order, dated 14-02-2011 passed in I.A.No.829 of 2010, and, thereafter, he filed I.A.No.479 of 2011 in I.A.No.829 of 2010 in O.S.No.135 of 2008 under Section 148 of CPC to grant two months time for complying the order, dated 14-02-2011 in I.A.No.829 of 2010, contending that he was maintaining the said amount for a period of one year after filing of the suit and thereafter, he diverted the said amount for another investment and therefore, he could not deposit the amount within the given period of one month. The court below vide its order, dated 21-03-2011, dismissed I.A.No.479 of 2011, by observing as follows:- “Notice given. Heard the petitioner did not deposit the balance of consideration even till date. Hence this petition is dismissed.” For non-compliance of the order, dated 14-02-2011 passed in I.A.No.829 of 2010, the court below vide its order, dated 21-03-2011, dismissed I.A.No.829 of 2010 by observing as follows:- “I.A.No.479 of 2011 is dismissed. Balance of sale consideration is not deposited even till today though directed to deposit by 14-03-2011 and another adjournment is granted. Hence, this petition is dismissed.” Whether the petitioner is entitled for any reasonable extension of time, is a question to be considered by the court below. But, the court below without considering the entitlement of the petitioner for extension of time and without assigning any reason dismissed I.A.No.479 of 2011 and I.A.No.829 of 2010. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the orders in I.A.Nos.829 of 2010 and I.A.No.479 of 2011 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 23-12-2011 Prv