THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.391 of 2010 JUDGMENT: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.207 of 2006 in the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District against respondent No.2 and the appellant for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The appellant being the subsequent purchaser of the property alone is contesting the matter. An ex parte decree was passed on 20.06.2008. The appellant filed I.A.No.1172 of 2008 under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree. It was pleaded that the Senior Counsel for the appellant was engaged in a Court at Vikarabad and the Junior Counsel, who was entrusted the work, was engaged in a different Court. The application was opposed by respondent No.1. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 17.03.2009. Hence, the appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. The appellant filed written statement on receiving the summons in the suit. The trial of the suit commenced and the affidavit in lieu of chief examination of P.W.1 was filed. At that stage, it appears that there was some laxity on the part of the appellant to cross-examine P.W.1. After giving ample opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine that witness, the trial Court has set the appellant ex parte and passed an ex parte decree on the same day. The plea raised by the appellant was that her Senior Counsel was busy in a Court at different place and the Junior Counsel could not attend the Court when the matter was called. The trial Court made an observation to the effect that no affidavit was filed by the Junior Counsel. Obviously to fill that deficiency, the affidavit of the Junior Counsel is filed before this Court. It is stated that he is new to the profession and on account of lack of understanding of the matter, he could not arrange the things properly. This Court is of the view that the appellant deserves to be shown indulgence, particularly when the default on her part was only to cross-examine P.W.1. The inconvenience caused to respondent No.1 can be compensated by awarding costs. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.1172 of 2008 shall stand allowed, on payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 appearing in this Court, within four (4) weeks from today. The amount is paid across the Bar and the condition is complied with. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.07.2010 Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl