THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3698 OF 2009 Date: 13-08-2009 Between Addala Janaki Pushpavathi and another …..Petitioners Muppana Ashok Kumar @ Ankayya and eight others …..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3698 OF 2009 ORDER: This is a revision by the petitioners - defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the correctness of the docket order dated 19-06-2009 passed in I.A No. 251 of 2008 in I.A No. 769 of 2007 in O.S No. 135 of 2000, wherein the learned Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu, East Godavari District dismissed the I.A filed by them to set aside the ex parte order dated 18-03-2008 passed in I.A No. 769 of 2007 filed for setting aside default order passed in the suit. The respondents – plaintiffs filed the above suit for declaration of title over the suit schedule property. The suit was earlier dismissed for default and was restored on 30-10-2007 with a direction to the plaintiffs to proceed with the matter. Since the respondents – plaintiffs failed to proceed with the matter and as there was no representation on their behalf, the suit was again dismissed for default. On such dismissal, they filed I.A No. 769 of 2009 for restoration of the suit, in which notice was ordered to the petitioners herein. Since they have not put up their appearance, they were set ex parte. In view of the same, they filed I.A No. 251 of 2008 to set aside the default order setting them ex parte in the said I.A. Since I.A No. 769 of 2007 has already been allowed on the same day restoring the suit to its file on payment of costs of Rs.300/- to the Mandal Legal Services Authority directing the plaintiffs to commence trial by leading evidence, the lower Court dismissed I.A No. 251 of 2008 filed by the petitioners herein. Even if the petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the ex parte order is set aside, the same will not have any effect on the order passed in I.A No. 769 of 2007 and allowing the said I.A is only an empty formality. But, the lower Court ought to have allowed I.A No. 251 of 2008, instead of dismissing the same. Since the petitioners have already filed their written statement, they are entitled to participate in the trial. With the above observations, the civil revision petition is dismissed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 13-08-2009 ks