THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4749 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal in I.A.No.1010 of 2009 in O.S.No.1386 of 2007, whereby the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 128 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 4 C.P.C to set aside the order of dismissal for default for non-payment of process fee, was dismissed. The petitioner herein instituted the said suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.23,112/- on the foot of a promissory note. The said suit was received by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal and thereafter it was made over to V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal on 12.12.2008. As the process was not paid by the petitioner-plaintiff and as Defendant Nos.1 and 2 could not be served with notices and they were absent, the matter was adjourned to 15.02.2009. It appears subsequently also the matter underwent several adjournments enabling the petitioner to pay process, but the same was not paid. In those circumstances, V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal dismissed the suit for default by order dated 08.04.2009. On coming to know about the dismissal of the suit for default, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 4 C.P.C to set aside the said order of dismissal for default and in the process there was a delay of 128 days. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present I.A under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the same was dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.12.2009. Hence, this revision petition. Sri K.V.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff strenuously contended that the petitioner does not know about the transfer of the suit and that before transferring the suit he was not put on notice, and as such no laches can be attributed to the petitioner for non-payment of the process. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Rule 63 of A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980 and submitted that the Court below clearly erred in dismissing the suit for default and the application filed to condone the delay. As it is a matter in between the petitioner and the Court, the usual notice to the respondents/defendants was dispensed with for the reason that they have not entered appearance. As per the provision appended to Rule 63 of A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980, if the District Court transfers a suit, appeal or other proceeding of its own motion and without giving notice in the first instance, it shall record in writing its reasons for dispensing with such notice and shall direct the court from which it has been transferred to intimate the parties or their Advocates about the transfer and the date on which they should appear before the court to which it has been transferred. From a perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that the matter was adjourned by the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge number of times for payment of process, but at no point of time there was notice to the petitioner that the suit was before the said Judge. In those circumstances, it can definitely be said that the make over of the suit by the District Judge on his own motion is without notice to the petitioner, but however, it is a matter to be decided by the Court below. The present application is only with regard to condonation of delay of 128 days. As the said delay is not abnormal and the reasons assigned by the petitioner appeared to be genuine, this Court is of the view that the said delay can be condoned. Accordingly, the order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal in I.A.No.1010 of 2009 in O.S.No.1386 of 2007 is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J Date: 19.11.2010 va