IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6295 of 2009 BETWEEN: P. Prasad, S/o.P. Seshaiah and others ... PETITIONERS AND C. Krishna Reddy, S/o. Eswara Reddy ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6295 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 30.03.2009, passed in I.A.No.525 of 2008 in O.S.No.765 of 2003, on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder the application filed by the respondent/defendant No.2 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short, “C.P.C.”) seeking restoration of the suit, was allowed on costs of Rs.500/-. Petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondent is defendant No.2 in the suit. The said suit was filed seeking eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the defendants were set ex parte and the suit was decreed ex parte, on 26.03.2007. Aggrieved thereby, defendants filed I.A.Nos.531 and 532 of 2007 and when the said I.As., were allowed, the suit was restored. Thereafter, for the second time, on 17.04.2008, when the defendants were again set ex parte and the suit was decreed, defendant No.2 - respondent filed the present I.A.No.525 of 2008 under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 17.04.2008. The said application was ordered on payment of Rs.500/-, on 30.03.2009. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed C.M.A.No.22 of 2009 before the learned V Additional District Judge, Nellore and however, the same was dismissed as not maintainable, on 23.10.2009. Thus, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice that defendant No.2 - respondent was set ex parte, on 17.04.2008, and immediately, before one month, defendant No.2 – respondent under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. filed an application and the same was ordered on 30.03.2009, that to on payment of costs of Rs.500/-. I am of the opinion that there is no delay in filing the present I.A. under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. and the trial Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to give one more opportunity to the respondent/petitioner, allowed the application on payment of costs. This discretionary order passed by the trial Court cannot be interfered in a civil revision petition like this, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and hence, the civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the defendant No.2 is set ex parte or any ex parte decree is passed against him in future, no application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. shall be entertained. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ C.V. RAMULU, J January 22, 2010 MD