IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Civil Revision Petition.No.3081 of 2004 Date:28.01.2011 Between:- Udayagiri Sujanamma. .. Petitioner A N D Mule Rami Reddy and others. .. Respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER: The present revision is laid by the 1st defendant in O.S. No.15 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur. The suit was laid against five defendants. Defendants 2 to 5 remained ex parte. The 1st defendant alone contested the matter. The 1st defendant is concerned with item No.4 of the plaint schedule property only. 2. The plaintiff sought for a temporary injunction from the trial Court. I.A. No.64 of 2005 before the trial Court for grant of a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Judge on 17.10.2005. The plaintiff preferred C.M.A. No.15 of 2005 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Cuddapah at Proddatur. C.M.A. No.15 of 2005 was allowed by the appellate Court on 23.02.2007. The 1st defendant laid a revision assailing the orders of the appellate Court. 3. This Court granted status quo through orders on 06.11.2007 in the revision laid by the 1st defendant. 4. While so, on 11.07.2007 itself, the trial Court decreed the suit ex parte. The 1st defendant laid a petition to set aside the ex parte decree against her on 03.10.2007 in I.A. No.1146 of 2008. The counsel for the plaintiff informed this Court on 21.10.2008 that the ex parte decree was passed against the 1st defendant who laid the revision. Obviously, the 1st defendant has no cause of action in the revision once an ex parte decree was passed against her. This Court consequently dismissed the revision on 21.10.2008 as infructuous. 5. The 1st defendant moved this Court through C.R.P.M.P. No.6890 of 2008 bringing to the notice of this Court that the 1st defendant-revision petitioner in fact filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., and that, the interlocutory application in I.A. No.1146 of 2008 was pending before the trial Court. This Court dismissed the miscellaneous petition on 17.03.2009 granting liberty to the 1st defendant to move for the restoration of the revision in the event the ex parte order is set aside by the trial Court. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, pointed out that on 27.05.2009, this Court set aside the ex parte decree passed against the 1st defendant and that the suit therefore is presently on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur. 6. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that once the revision was closed on the ground that the suit was decreed ex parte, the revision itself stands disposed of and cannot be restored even after the restoration of the suit before the trial court. The High Court was pleased to pass orders on 17.03.2009 granting liberty to the petitioner to move a petition for restoration of the revision in the event the suit is restored to file. The said order in C.R.P.M.P. No.6890 of 2008 became final. Therefore, it is imperative to restore the revision to file and to hear the revision on merits. Accordingly, this revision is restored to file. The revision shall be posted before the Bench having provision for disposal according to law. 7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the 1st defendant was again set ex parte before the trial court and again the suit was decreed ex parte. If so, the very revision becomes not maintainable. It shall be considered when the revision is taken up for trial. __________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J 28th January 2011 KSP