HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5957 of 2010 Date: January 29, 2011 Between: Amarthaluru Dhanunjaya Rao, S/o.Venkataramanaiah, aged about 40 years, Occ: business, R/o.D.No.12/897, Opp: BED College, Santhapet, Nellore … Petitioner And Peruru Srinivasa Suresh Babu, S/o.Seshagir Rao, aged about 42 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Tanguturu Village, Tanguturu Mandal, Prakasam District and another … Respondents Order: This civil revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed aggrieved of order dated 23- 11-2010 passed in C.M.A.No.4 of 2010 by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, SPSR Nellore District, whereby and whereunder order dated 23-02- 2010 passed in I.A.No.65 of 2010 in I.A.No.538 of 2007 in O.S.No.988 of 2007 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore is confirmed. Petitioner herein is the defendant and respondents are plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit which was filed for eviction of the petitioner from the suit schedule premises. An ex parte decree was passed in the said suit on 01-05-2009. To set-aside the same, petitioner filed I.A.No.538 of 2009, which was allowed by trial court by order dated 27-11-2009 subject to condition of his paying costs of Rs.5,000/-. Such imposition of costs was questioned by petitioner by filing C.R.P.No.6966 of 2009 before this court, which was dismissed. As much as costs ordered in I.A.No.538 of 2009 were not paid by the petitioner within the time specified, the said I.A. was dismissed on 22-12-2009. Subsequently, petitioner filed I.A.No.65 of 2010 under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to set-aside order dated 22-12-2009 passed in in I.A.No.538 of 2009. The trial court rejected the same by order dated 23-02-2010, recording a finding that I.A.No.538 of 2009 was disposed of on merits; as such, the application of petitioner is not maintainable. Challenging the same, petitioner filed C.M.A.No.4 of 2010 on the file of the Family Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, SPSR Nellore District, but was unsuccessful. In this revision petition, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that although I.A.No.65 of 2010 is filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, the court below ought to have moulded the relief in favour of the petitioner in the interests of justice. In this case, it is to be noticed that I.A.No.538 of 2009 filed by the petitioner to set-aside the ex parte decree was allowed by order dated 27-11-2009 subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- on or before 07-12-2009. Although petitioner questioned such imposition of costs by way of C.R.P.No.6166 of 2009, he was unsuccessful in view of dismissal of the said revision petition by this court. As much as he has not paid the costs within the time prescribed, the said I.A., was dismissed. If for any reason petitioner could not pay the costs within the timeframe, he ought to have moved an application for extension of time for payment of costs, but he could not have filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to set-aside order dated 22-12- 2009. The order dated 22-12-2009 is not an order of default and the same was passed in view of non-compliance of condition for payment of costs. In any event, having regard to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.65 of 2010, there are no grounds for extension of time. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 23-02-2010 passed in I.A.No.65 of 2010 in I.A.No.538 of 2007 in O.S.No.988 of 2007 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore as confirmed by order dated 23-11-2010 passed in C.M.A.No.4 of 2010 by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, SPSR Nellore District, warranting interference in this petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) January 29, 2011 MRR