IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3265 OF 2006 BETWEEN Pittala Komuramma and two others. …PETITIONERS AND Mattapalli Mahender and 11 others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: MR. C. DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR. BANKATLAL MANDHANI The Court made the following: - ORDER: This revision is by the defendants 7 to 9 in O.S.No.333 of 2001 aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.754 of 2002 dated 09.03.2006 dismissing the application to condone the delay. 2. Ms. V. Jayasree, learned counsel for the petitioner has very strenuously argued that the order is liable to be set aside, as the reasons for the delay have been sufficiently explained by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the said application but the Court below has taken a pedantic view. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent also, who submits that the opportunity sought for by the petitioners does not deserve to be granted to them, as they hardly have any defence in the suit and that they are interested only in delaying the partition suit. 4. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. The suit in question is one for partition and the petitioners are appearing as defendants 7 to 9. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay that the suit was transferred from the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Warangal to the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Warangal. According to the petitioners, they have no notice of transfer and therefore, they could not appear and were set ex parte and ex parte decreed was passed on 22.11.2001. They also state that as per their verification they found that the suit was dismissed for default on 26.09.2001 and thereafter, it appears that the suit was restored on 03.10.2001 but the petitioners had no notice. It is stated that their written statement is ready and they are prepared to file it on the next opportunity and participate in the suit. 5. Keeping in view the fact that the suit is one for partition and the fact that the suit was transferred from one Court to another cannot be disputed, there is, therefore, no reason to disbelieve the statement of the petitioners that they had no notice of the transfer of the suit and as such, could not appear before the transferee Court. In any case, the suit being at the stage of the filing written statement, in the interest of justice an opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioners so as to enable them to file the written statement and contest the suit on merits. The application I.A.No.754 of 2002 accordingly deserves to be allowed, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioners to the credit of the suit within four (4) weeks from today. On such deposit, the respondent/plaintiff shall be entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security and thereafter, the suit shall proceed in accordance with law. In the event of default by the petitioners, the Court below shall proceed with the matter treating the CRP as dismissed. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 15, 2010 DSK