HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4978 of 2010 And CIVIL REVISION PETITION (SR).No.29324 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Since these two Revisions arise out of the same proceedings and the parties are same, they are heard together and being disposed of by a common order. In C.R.P.No.4978 of 2010 the petitioner is the defendant No.1 who filed the Revision under Section 115 C.P.C. inter alia seeking to assail the correctness of the order, dated 19.08.2010, passed by the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the application in I.A.No.463 of 2010 in I.A.No.89 of 2010 in O.S.No.2552 of 2007 purportedly filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to review the order, dated 21.04.2010, passed in I.A.No.89 of 2010. Whereas the other Civil Revision Petition (SR) No.29324 of 2010 is filed against the orders, dated 21.04.2010, passed in I.A.No.89 of 2010, dismissing the application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 28.10.2009. The brief facts are that the suit filed for recovery of money by the respondents herein-plaintiffs has been decreed ex parte on 28.10.2009 and immediately, thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application to set aside the same, however, the same was dismissed by the Court below only on the ground that the petitioner filed the said application after respondent No.1 filed the execution proceedings. Subsequently, the petitioner had also filed another application for review of the said order on the ground that the said fact is not correct. The same was also dismissed. Hence, the present two Civil Revision Petitions. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Though served, none appeared for the respondents. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the relevant material on record, it is seen that admittedly, the suit is of the year 2007 and the same was decreed ex parte in the year 2009. Especially, when the defendant had come forward requesting to give him an opportunity and having filed written statement, where he has denied the entire suit claim itself, the Court below should have given an opportunity to him rather than denying the same. There is no serious objection on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs since there is no appearance on their behalf before this Court. In view of the same, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the orders impugned in both the Revisions are hereby set aside and that I.A.Nos.463 of 2010 and 89 of 2010 on the file of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad stands allowed and consequently, the ex parte decree, dated 28.10.2009, passed in O.S.No.2552 of 2007 on the file of the Court below is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO 07th April 2011 DR