THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5279 OF 2009 DT.29.04.2010 Between: Yennamsetty Sivaramakrishna Prasad …………………Petitioner Vs. Yennamsetty Srinivasa Rao ………………….Respondent. O R D E R: Heard Sri Ch.Rama Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri G.Radha Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The petitioner who is defendant in the suit filed the present revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C., aggrieved against the order, dated 09.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.1003 of 2008 in O.S.No.450 of 2006. The facts of the case in brief are that the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., seeking to condone the delay of 280 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree was rejected by the court below. In a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares, the petitioner/defendant was set ex parte at the initial stage itself and no written statement has been filed. Therefore, the court below passed ex parte orders on 17.01.2008. Thereafter, the present application has been filed by the petitioner/defendant with a delay of 280 days seeking to condone the delay, stating that as he suffered jaundice, he could not present before the court and failed to approach the counsel. The court below dismissed the said application on the ground that the Doctor who issued Ex.P1-Doctor Certificate was not examined and except filing the said document, no sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay. Hence, the present revision petition. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the material placed before this court, it is seen that though the petitioner filed Ex.P-1 in support of his illness, the Doctor who issued the certificate was not examined. Be that as it may, since the suit itself is comprehensive in nature, the substantial rights of the parties are involved. Therefore, I am of the view that the court below should have given an opportunity to both the parties so that they can have a decree after due contest, ratherthan allowing an ex parte decree to become final. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision petition is allowed. The order, dated 09.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.1003 of 2008 in O.S.No.450 of 2006 is set aside and I.A.No.1003 of 2008 is allowed and consequently, the ex parte decree dated 17.01.2008 passed in O.S.No.450 of 2006 is set aside. The court below shall proceed with the suit and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to both parties. No order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., Dt.29.04.2010 tjs