THE HON’BLE SRI JU​STICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3206 of 2009 Date:11.09.2009 Between: B. Ramana Reddy. ..Petitioner AND S.J. Paramanandam. ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3206 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against order dated 17.06.2009 passed in I.A.No.593 of 2009 in O.S.No.70 of 2009 by I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, insofar imposing condition on the petitioner/defendant to deposit half of the suit amount, while allowing the I.A. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of money based on promissory note dated 02.10.2006 against the petitioner herein. As the petitioner/defendant was repeatedly absent and failed to avail the opportunities given by the Court to contest the suit, his right to file written statement was forfeited on 23.04.2009. Therefore, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.593 of 2009 seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 23.04.2009. His reason for his absence was that he was unable to secure leave from his officials and unable to contact his counsel. In such circumstances, the trial Court allowed the I.A. giving an opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to contest the suit on condition of depositing half of the suit amount. The only grievance of the petitioner/defendant is that while allowing the I.A., the trial Court ought not to have imposed such an onerous condition. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the suit summons were served on 05.03.2009; that as per Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner/defendant had ninety days time to file the written statement, which expired on 04.06.2009 and therefore, imposition of such onerous condition of deposit of half of the suit amount even before expiry of specified time is illegal. A perusal of the material on record shows that the counsel for the petitioner/defendant filed vakalath on 05.03.2009 and the matter was posted to 06.04.2009; that on 06.04.2009 as the Presiding Officer was on leave, the matter was posted to 23.04.2009; that on 23.04.2009 the petitioner/defendant was called absent and there was no representation, and therefore, the trial Court forfeited the right of the petitioner/defendant to file the written statement and the matter was posted for evidence on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff to 04.05.2009. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that while giving an opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to contest the suit by filing the written statement, imposition of such condition is onerous. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the condition imposed in order dated 17.06.2009 in I.A.No.593 of 2009 in O.S.No.70 of 2009 on the petitioner/defendant to deposit half of the decretal amount is set aside. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on priority basis. No order as to costs. _______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J 11th September, 2009 GHN