IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3605 OF 2007 BETWEEN Mannuru Umadevi. …PETITIONER AND Gude Mohan Rao and others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: MR. J. SREENIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR. C.M.R. VELU The Court made the following: - ORDER: In a suit O.S.No.30 of 2003 for declaration and consequential relief, the petitioner, who is defendant No.1, was set ex parte on 19.03.2004 for non- filing of written statement. She has, thereafter, filed the present application I.A.No.197 of 2007 on 02.02.2007 seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 19.03.2004. That application was very seriously contested by the respondents 1 to 3, who are plaintiffs in the suit, and under the impugned order dated 09.07.2007 the said application has been rejected. Hence, this revision petition. 2. Heard both the learned counsel appearing on either side. 3. Petitioner’s counsel has pointed out the affidavit averments of the petitioner that though she had appeared through her counsel by filing his appearance on 26.06.2003, thereafter, her husband died in a fire accident during Vinayakachavithi festival in 2004 and as the petitioner had no support of male member, she had migrated to Tirupati for her livelihood and on account of poverty, she was unable to come to Rajampet, where the suit is pending. She stated that she has since returned to Rajampet, on enquiries came to know of the ex parte order dated 19.03.2004. 4. The said averments to the extent of death of her husband etc. though not disputed by the respondents, they have contested petitioner’s averments by stating that the petitioner, in fact, was involved in a criminal case in 2005 and 2006 and appeared before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet on 22.05.2006 and 14.12.2006 and thereafter, regularly. The respondents, therefore, dispute the veracity of the petitioner’s statement that she could not come to Rajampet on account of poverty. 5. The impugned order shows that the Court below has accepted the respondents’ contentions and found that the petitioner was negligent and the reasons given by her are not bonafide. The trial Court relied upon a decision of this Court in THOTTEMPUDI AMMAJI v. CONVENTION OF BAPTIST CHRUCHES OF NORTHERN CIRCARS[1] where a strict view of Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was taken by this Court and on finding that the petitioner therein was aware of the pendency of the proceedings no good cause was assailed for non-appearance for long period. The petitioner’s counsel, on the contrary, has relied upon a later decision of this Court in AZMATH BAIG v. T. NARESH KUMAR SINGH[2] where this Court considered the decision in THOTTEMPUDI AMMAJI’s case (1 supra) as well as noticed the decisions of the Supreme Court and other decisions of this Court and was of the view that the application in that case deserved to be allowed, particularly, after noticing the distinction pointed out by the Supreme Court, as Order IX Rule 7 CPC employs the word ‘good cause’ in contradiction to the words ‘sufficient cause’ in Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the rigour of requirement under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is much higher than that of the requirement of Order IX Rule 7 CPC (see ARJUN SINGH v. MOHINDRA KUMAR [AIR 1964 SC 993]). 6. Applying the aforesaid test to the present case, it cannot be disputed that the husband of the petitioner died in 2004 and she migrated to Tirupati, as they remained uncontroverted. The inability of the petitioner to participate in the suit is supported by good cause and the Court below committed error in shutting out the petitioner from participating in the suit by filing a written statement and the impugned order shows that the Court below has taken very hypertechnical view rather than liberal view required to be taken under Order IX Rule 7 CPC. The proceedings of the criminal case, as alleged by the respondents, were not exhibited and as such, the Court below erred in rejecting the petitioner’s averments in support of the present application. The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set aside. 7. I am informed that the suit is coming up for defendant’s evidence and that the petitioner has already filed her written statement along with the present application itself. The Court below, therefore, is directed to take the written statement on record and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall cooperate with the trial Court and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments. The suit being of the year 2003, the Court below is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the suit positively before 31.03.2011. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 1, 2010 Note: Office to dispatch the order in one week. (B/o) DSK [1] 1999 (3) ALT 141 [2] 2006 (3) ALD 64