MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 5654 of 2008 Between: V.S. Krishan Rao and another. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Kurva Kamajipuram Kashanna and another. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P.No.5654 of 2008 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 16-10-2008 passed in I.A.No.300 of 2008 in O.S.No.60 of 2007, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla, whereby the trial Court was pleased to condone the delay of 285 days by imposing costs of Rs.600/-. 2. The brief facts are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.60 of 2007 for granting perpetual injunction against the petitioners-defendants restraining them from interfering with their possession over the suit schedule property. The trial Court decreed the suit ex parte on 09-10-2007 on the ground that the petitioners-defendants have not filed the written statement within time. But the petitioners- defendants came to know the said fact only on 12-08-2008 through their counsel. Immediately they filed the present application in I.A.No.300 of 2008 in O.S.No.60 of 2007 to condone the delay of 285 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed in the suit. By order dated 16-10-2008, the trial Court allowed the petition by imposing costs of Rs.600/-. The same is questioned in this Civil Revision Petition. 3. Though the notices were served on the respondents, they have not chosen to be heard. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants. 5. On 19-08-2009, this Court, while adjourning the matter, directed the petitioners-defendants to ascertain the fact as to whether the respondents-plaintiffs have paid costs of Rs.600/- as imposed by the trial Court or not. Now the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants states that the respondents-plaintiffs have paid the costs as directed by the trial Court. 6. No doubt, the delay is abnormal, but, however, the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion and accordingly allowed the petition condoning the delay of 285 days by imposing costs of Rs.600/-. In my considered view, the impugned order does not need any interference by this Court. I see no merits in the revision. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ 18t h January 2010 kvr