THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:1300 OF 2011 DATE:07.09.2011 BETWEEN THOTA CHINNAIAH …PETITIONER AND THOTA MALAKONDAIAH & ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:1300 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 25.3.2011 in I.A.No:32 of 2011 in O.S.No:324 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Udayagiri dismissing the application. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff. He filed I.A.32 of 2011 under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 70 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 4 and 9 C.P.C and the lower Court having observed that there is no sufficient cause or explanation offered by the petitioner except stating that he came to know about the dismissal of the suit after receiving notice from the 2nd defendant, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. The learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that originally, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.126 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakuru and also filed an application in I.A.No:203 of 2002 seeking for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the schedule property which are mulgies consisting four rooms and the Court below has granted the interim relief in I.A.203 of 2002 and the same is subsisting. While so, on constitution of a new court of Junior Civil Judge, at Udayagiri, the suit was transferred to the said Court wherein it is numbered as O.S.No:324 of 2002 and thereafter, the petitioner has not received any notice either from the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Atmakuru or Udayagiri about the transfer of the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to the ill heath of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff at Atmakuru, the learned counsel could not attend the Court for a sufficient time and therefore, neither the petitioner nor his counsel had knowledge about the stage of the case at Udayagiri in O.S.324 of 2008. It is further submitted that the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No:324 of 2002 for default only on receipt of the notice issued from the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Atmakuru in O.S.3 of 2011 filed by the third party. To the effect that the counsel for the petitioner at Atmakuru suffered from ill health for a period of two years, an affidavit has also been filed before this Court. On behalf of the respondents, the 2nd respondent filed the counter, for which the petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit. At this stage of the proceedings, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that as and when the suit on the file of Atmakuru has been transferred to the file of Udayagiri, his clients-defendants have received the notice to that effect and therefore, it is an exaggeration to say that neither the plaintiff nor his counsel have received the notice as to the transfer of the case from Atmakuru to Udayagiri. However, the learned counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that the parties may be directed to co operate with the expeditious disposal of the suit on the ground that the suit is of the year 2002. On a consideration of the material on record as well as the order impugned, it is apparent that the defence taken by the plaintiff that he has no knowledge as to the transfer of the case from Atmakuru to Udayagiri and his counsel who was suffering with illness for a period of two years, could not know the stage of the case and in addition to that, he has not been issued any notice either by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Atmakuru or Udayagiri, has not been taken into consideration while passing the order impugned herein. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the defence theory introduced by the petitioner-plaintiff appears to be a bonafide one. The absence of the plaintiff in the suit proceedings pending before the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Udayagiri had occurred under a peculiar circumstances of the case and apart from that, it is needless to say that a lis between the parties has to be adjudicated on its own merits but not on mere technicalities, in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings of this nature. In this view of the matter, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, revision petition is allowed setting aside the order impugned and consequently, I.As filed by the petitioner- plaintiff stand allowed. The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit itself within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. At this stage, the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as the defendant submitted that their parties would cooperate with the Court in disposing of the suit within the time stipulated by this Court. _____________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Gurc. Date:07.09.2011 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:1300 OF 2011 DATE:07.09.2011