THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P.No.2711 of 2008 Date: 19.01.2011 Between: Budthi Mallaiah and 2 others … Petitioners AND Budthi Anjaiah … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P.No.2711 of 2008 ORDER: The three petitioners are the defendants. The sole respondent is the plaintiff. Notice was served upon the respondent-plaintiff. No one appeared for the respondent-plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff laid the suit in O.S.No.169 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda for partition of the plaint schedule property by meats and bounds. The defendants remained ex parte in the suit. An ex parte decree was passed by the trial Court on 27.02.2007. 3. The defendants thereafter laid I.A.No.304 of 2007 to set aside the ex parte decree. However, the petition was dismissed for default on 29.06.2007. The petitioners-defendants thereafter laid I.A.No.355 of 2008 in I.A.No.304 of 2007 to condone the delay of 306 days in filing petition to set aside the default order. 4. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff took out final decree proceedings through I.A.No.151 of 2008. I.A.No.151 of 2008 stood posted to 24.04.2008 for the appearance of the defendants. As the defendants did not appear before the Court on 24.04.2008, they were set ex parte. An advocate Commissioner consequently was appointed in I.A.No.151 of 2008 to suggest partition by meats and bounds. The defendants thereafter laid I.A.No.354 of 2008 to set aside the ex parte order dated 24.04.2008 in I.A.No.151 of 2008. 5. The present revision is laid seeking for a direction to the trial Court to dispose of I.A.No.355 of 2008 in I.A.No.304 of 2007 and for disposal of I.A.No.354 of 2008 in I.A.No.151 of 2008. 6. It is curious as to how this revision is maintainable to issue a direction to the trial Court for the disposal of I.A.Nos.354 of 2008 and 355 of 2008. 7. The learned counsel for the defendants’ reports that the trial Court subsequently set aside the ex parte decree that was passed against the defendants, that the very suit was disposed of ultimately being dismissed on merits and that consequently the very revision and the final decree proceedings became infructuous. 8. Where the very ex parte decree was set aside and where the suit was disposed of on merits, the question of proceeding with the final decree does not arise. The revision, therefore, has become infructuous. 9. The civil revision petition, accordingly, is dismissed as infructuous without costs, in view of the restoration of O.S.No.169 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 19.01.2011 Isn