HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2153 OF 2011 DATE:21-10-2011 BETWEEN Rawathmal Dugar (died) per L.R. And another …Petitioners AND Raichur Matham Soma Sekhara Sharma (died) and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2153 OF 2011 ORDER: Petitioner’s father, who is the decree holder-tenant obtained an order for restoration of the E.P. schedule property. On his death, the second petitioner herein came on record as his legal representative and filed E.A.No.284 of 2007 to bring the legal representatives of deceased judgment debtor-landlord on record. When the E.A. was coming up for enquiry and for payment of costs of Rs.50/- on 11.11.2010, there was no representation for the petitioner as the advocates were boycotting the Courts. Since there was no representation, E.A.No.284 of 2007 was dismissed. For restoration of the same, impugned E.A.No.518 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner on 16.11.2010. the same was dismissed by the lower Court on 18.1.2011 on the ground that even if the advocates have boycotted the Court on 11.11.2010 nothing prevented the petitioner in appearing in the Court and filing his written argument by paying the day costs to the opposite counsel and that he intentionally not appeared on the said date and not complied with the order. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. Admittedly, against the restoration order passed in favour of the petitioner’s father (decree holder), the matter was carried to the Supreme Court and on dismissal of the same, the above E.P. was filed. In the affidavit, the petitioner categorically stated that in view of the boycott of the courts by the advocates, he attended the Court, searched for the other side counsel for payment of day costs of Rs.50/- and as he could not locate the counsel, he failed to pay the costs to the counsel representing the judgment debtor and therefore, the delay was not willful nor wanton. The reasons mentioned by the petitioner have not been controverted by filing any counter. In view of the same, the reasons offered by the petitioner are deemed to have been accepted. Therefore, the lower Court ought not to have dismissed the impugned I.A. but the same should have been allowed on some terms. Under those circumstances, the revision is allowed and the impugned order passed by the lower Court is set aside. I.A.No.518 of 2010 stands allowed on condition of petitioner paying a sum of Rs.500/- towards costs to the counsel representing the respondent in the Court below. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. OCTOBER 21, 2011 Tsr.