HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO. 5651 OF 2010 Friday, the Twenty Fourth day of December, Two Thousand and Ten Between Mydi Kondamma Petitioner AND Perla Venkataswamy and others Respondents ORAL ORDER: The petitioner is defendant No.4 in OS No. 247 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, filed by the first respondent herein. The said suit was filed against the petitioner, who is defendant No.4, and four others. After receiving the summons, the petitioner engaged a counsel, but she could not file written statement and, therefore, she was set exparte on 21.4.2005. The said suit was filed for declaration of title. Evidence on behalf of plaintiff was over and it was coming up for defendants’ evidence. After about five years, she filed I.A. No.531 of 2009 in the said suit under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC to set aside the exparte order dated 21.4.2005 and to afford an opportunity to her to defend the case by permitting her to file written statement. The said application was dismissed by order dated 28.8.2010, against which the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Though notice is served on the first respondent, none appeared. The subject matter of the Civil Revision Petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this court in the case o f K.Alivelamma Vs. K.Suryanarayana and others ([1]), wherein it was held that where one of the defendants remained exparte, the said party cannot be allowed to put back the hands of the clock by permitting to file written statement and recalling the witnesses already examined, but such a person can be given liberty to participate in further proceedings from the date at which the party puts in appearance. Following the said judgment, the revision petitioner is permitted to participate in the proceedings from the stage at which she puts in her appearance, but she cannot be allowed to put the hands of the clock back by permitting her to file written statement and recall the witnesses already examined, as there is any amount of laches and long silence and inaction on her part for more than five years, which is not properly explained by her. Therefore, granting liberty to the revision petitioner to participate in the proceedings from the stage at which she puts in her appearance, the revision petition is partly allowed. It is made clear that the revision petitioner cannot be permitted to put the hands of the clock back i.e. her written statement cannot be received and the witnesses examined earlier cannot be recalled for further cross- examination on behalf of the revision petitioner. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah December 24, 2010 MAS [1] 2007 (4) ALT 430