THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5586 of 2009 ORDER: Respondent Nos.1 to 11 filed O.S.No.26 of 2001 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni against the petitioner and respondent No.12 for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner purchased that very property under a sale deed executed by respondent No.2 on 03.04.2000. After receiving summons, the petitioner filed written statement. It is stated that the petitioner is a resident of a village in Karnataka State and that she entrusted the matter to her brother. The brother of the petitioner died on 19.10.2004. On reporting no instructions by her counsel, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree on 29.08.2005. It is at the stage of final decree proceedings, that the petitioner came to know about the preliminary decree. She filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree. Since there was delay, she filed I.A.No.606 of 2008 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application was opposed by respondent Nos.1 to 11. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 15.09.2009. Hence, this revision. Sri K.Sitaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that when the counsel engaged by the petitioner reported no instructions, the trial Court ought to have issued notice and instead, it proceeded to pass preliminary decree. He further submits that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings on account of lack of communication from her Advocate and death of her brother, who was looking after the suit. The learned counsel also submits that his client was the only contesting defendant in the suit and the other defendant i.e. respondent No.12 herein is none other than the son of respondent No.1. Sri A.V.Sivaiah, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 11, on the other hand, submits that the delay is more than three years and hardly there was any explanation worth being considered. He further submits that in case the brother of the petitioner died, she ought to have made alternative arrangements. Admittedly, the petitioner purchased the property from respondent No.2 on 03.04.2000. All the same, the suit was filed for partition arraying the petitioner, respondent No.2 and certain others as defendants. The petitioner promptly filed the written statement. Since she happens to be a resident of a Village in Karnataka State, she entrusted the matter to her brother. Unfortunately, he died on 19.04.2004. Hence, there was no communication between the petitioner and her advocate. The Advocate of the petitioner reported no instructions. Normally, whenever the counsel for any party reports no instructions, the Court issues notice to the party enabling it to make arrangements. In Malkiat Singh Vs. Joginder Singh[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is obligatory on the part of a Court to issue notice to a party in case the Advocate reports no instructions. The said principle was followed by this Court in several cases. There is no dispute that the Advocate of the petitioner reported no instructions, and the trial Court did not issue any notice. Under these circumstances, the delay deserves to be condoned by compensating respondent Nos.1 to 11 by directing payment of costs, incurred by them to conduct the proceedings before this Court as well as the trial Court. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently I.A.No.606 of 2008 is allowed, on condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs to respondent Nos.1 to 11 within four (4) weeks from today. Since the same reasons hold good for setting aside the ex parte decree, the I.A. filed under order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. also shall stand allowed, on payment of costs. There shall be no order as to costs, in this civil revision petition. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 07.12.2010. kdl [1] 1998 2 SCC 206