HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3023 of 2009 Date : 06.08.2009 Between : L.I.C. of India, rep. by its Divisional Manager, Hanumakonda Division, Warangal Distict. …..Petitioner And Smt.Razia Begum & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3023 of 2009 ORDER : This revision petition is filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Hanumakonda Division, being aggrieved by the order, dated 10.02.2009, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, in I.A.No.183 of 2005 in O.S.No.3 of 1997. 2. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit. She has filed the said suit for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession of the suit property. As the plaintiff did not commence her evidence inspite of giving several adjournments, the trial Court has dismissed the suit in O.S.No.3 of 1997 for non-prosecution, on 07.08.2002. Thereafter, the 1st respondent-plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.183 of 2005, seeking to condone the delay of 2 years and 10 months in filing the application for restoration of the suit. In the said application in I.A.No.183 of 2005 filed for condonation of delay, it is stated by the 1st respondent-plaintiff that originally, the Court below has granted temporary injunction by an order, dated 22nd of February 1997, in I.A.No.18 of 1997, against which, the revision petitioner herein has filed an appeal before this Court, in C.M.A.No.1199 of 1997. It is stated that her husband was pursuing the matter in C.M.A.No.1199 of 1997 and she was under the impression that the trial in the Suit will commence only after disposal of the above said CMA by this Court, and subsequently, when it was enquired by her sons, they came to know that the suit was already dismissed for default on 07.08.2002, and thus, the delay of 2 years 10 months has occurred in filing the application for restoration of the Suit. 3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the petitioner- Corporation, denying the various allegations made by the 1st respondent-plaintiff. It is stated in the counter that C.M.A.No.1199 of 1997 was dismissed by this Court on 16.02.2004 itself, and the said fact is very much known to the plaintiff and her sons, as they were in constant touch with their counsel. It is stated that no proper explanation was offered by the 1st respondent-plaintiff for condoning the inordinate delay of 2 years and 10 months in filing the restoration petition, and therefore, the trial Court ought not have condoned such delay. 4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 5. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that while passing the said orders, the learned Judge has not taken into consideration the averments made by the petitioner-Corporation that the 1st respondent-plaintiff and her sons were aware of dismissal of C.M.A.No.1199 of 1997 by this Court, and without considering as to whether the cause shown by the 1st respondent-plaintiff was sufficient for condoning the inordinate delay of 2 years and 10 months, allowed the petition, by observing that it would be just to condone the delay for better adjudication of things. 6. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Court below has not exercised its powers in proper perspective, and therefore, it is a fit case to be remanded to the Court below, to reconsider the averments made by the petitioner-Corporation in its counter affidavit filed in I.A.No.183 of 2005. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, this revision is allowed, setting aside the order, dated 10th February 2009, passed in I.A.No.183 of 2005 in O.S.No.3 of 1997, and the matter is remanded to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, with a direction to decide the application afresh, after hearing both the parties. 8. Subject to above observations, this revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th August 2009 usd/ajr