THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5660 OF 2009. DATED:11-03-2010. Between: B.Rajender … Petitioner-Defendant No.2 and Santhoshi Devi and others …Respondents-Plaintiffs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5660 OF 2009. ORDER: This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 08-10-2009, in C.M.A.No.69 of 2009, on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in confirming the order, dated 02-06- 2008, in I.A.No.49 of 2008 in O.S.No.2273 of 2004, on the file of the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree, dated 06-06- 2005, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since the delay in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been condoned, for the same reason, the trial Court ought to have set aside the ex parte preliminary decree, dated 06- 06-2005 and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned orders. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the absence of the petitioner on 06- 06-2005 has not been explained, that having engaged an Advocate, the petitioner herein failed to file written statement, that both the Courts below rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision reported in G.VISWESHWARUDU V STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [1], wherein it was held thus: “Once that fact is accepted by the court, different standards cannot be applied in considering the application to set aside the exparte decree. The self same reasons are the reasons for his failure to appear in court on the day when the suit stood posted for trial. Therefore, the lower court has committed an error or law in holding that the Doctor has not been examined and, therefore, the burden which admittedly lay on the appellant was not discharged.” There is no dispute about the law down by this Court. But, the question is whether the petitioner has satisfactorily explained his absence on the date when the preliminary decree was passed. The petitioner after receipt of summons engaged an Advocate, but has not filed written statement. No reason was given by the petitioner for his absence on 06-06-2005. Therefore, the trial Court rightly set the petitioner ex parte and an ex parte preliminary decree was passed, which was confirmed by the appellate Court. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the orders under challenge. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:11-03-2010 Hsd [1] 1985 ALT (NRC) 113