THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Civil Revision Petition No.4316 of 2002 Date :01-12-2009 Between : Ram Kumar Tak and two others .. Petitioners And Vishnu Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Manager, V.Chandrasekhar, son of V.Laxmaiah, aged 33 years, Occ : Service, Office at 312, 3rd floor, Liberty Plaza, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Civil Revision Petition No.4316 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.254 of 2000 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. The respondent herein filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of Rs.1,25,547/-. In the said suit the petitioners had filed their written statement, but thereafter as the petitioners could not give instructions to the counsel, an ex parte decree came to be passed by the trial Court on 19-02-2001. The petitioners contended that the first petitioner, who is looking after the case on behalf of the petitioners, went to Rajasthan as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the present application and that though in the month of March, 2000 their Advocate sent them a letter about the suit being decreed ex parte, since the first petitioner was not in Hyderabad, they could not take any steps and thereafter the present application seeking condonation of delay of 95 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed vide I.A.No.967 of 2002. Under the impugned order, dated 17-07-2002 the Court below has dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioners having received summons, engaged an Advocate and filed written statement, failed thereafter to participate in the suit and the reasons given for condonation are insufficient. Questioning the said order, the present revision was preferred. This Court by order dated 15-11-2002 has admitted the Civil Revision Petition and had granted interim stay of execution of decree. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 26-11-2009 for the first time. On that day though the learned counsel for the petitioners was heard, as no body was appearing for respondent, I have directed to print the name of the counsel representing the respondent before the trial Court on whom the notice was served. Accordingly, learned counsel’s name appears in the cause list. However, nobody appears for the respondent The sufficiency or otherwise of the cause shown by the petitioners for condonation of delay, the other fact that the Civil Revision Petition is pending before this Court since November, 2002 and that there is stay of decree in operation all these years cannot be lost sight of. The petitioners had filed written statement in the suit, but thereafter did not participate and the first petitioner has mentioned that he had to go to Rajasthan believing that his counsel would take care of his interest and defend the suit. The suit, however, was decreed ex parte as the counsel has said to have reported no instructions, as the first petitioner was not in contact with him having gone over to Rajasthan. No doubt day-to- day delay is not explained. In the matter of this nature the delay could have been condoned by the trial Court on payment of cost, which would have sufficiently safeguarded the interests of the respondent also. In view of the fact that the suit was not decided after hearing both sides and the fact that ex parte decree though passed has been stayed for the last seven years, it would be just and proper to allow the Civil Revision Petition by allowing I.A.No.967 of 2002 in O.S.No.254 of 2000 as well as the consequential application for setting aside ex parte decree. The petitioners shall stand relegated to the position in the suit before passing of the ex parte decree. The trial Court shall grant one opportunity to the defendants to lead evidence and thereafter hear and disposed of the suit on merits in accordance with law. The defendants shall also deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs to the respondent for condonation of delay within a period of two weeks from today. On failure of the petitioners to deposit the costs, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed as indicated above. __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 01st December, 2009. skmr