IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.620 OF 2010 Between: A.Kameswar Rao and another …Petitioners A n d Gutta Veerabhadra Rao @ Muthaiah and two others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.620 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.08.2009 in I.A.No.12 of 2009 in O.S.No.26 of 1997, on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, wherein the said application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for restoration of the suit, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The suit was originally instituted in the year 1966 under Rule 14 of the Agency Rules for recovery of possession of the suit land. As can be seen from the copies of the docket proceedings of the suit filed as part of the material papers, the suit underwent a chequered career of worst type and in the process got dismissed for default a couple of occasions i.e., 17.09.1970 at the first instance and 17.07.1976 on the second occasion. The matter was getting adjourned from time to time without any progress. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit is already abated as no steps were taken to bring the legal representatives of the defendant on record. The question as to whether or not the suit stood abated is also to be considered by the learned Magistrate. 5. It is stated that on 18.07.1988 the original defendant died and subsequently his legal representatives, the petitioners herein, were impleaded. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam on 12.09.1997. The matter stood posted to 03.12.1997 but on the previous day i.e., 02.12.1997 itself, the case was called and as both advocates were absent, the suit was dismissed for default and thereafter, the plaintiffs appears to have filed the present petition seeking restoration along with an application to condone the delay. On 21.08.2009, the said application was allowed after hearing the plaintiff’s counsel and the suit was restored. 6. Apparently, no notice was issued and no opportunity was given to the petitioners herein, the defendants, before considering the application for condoning the delay and the application for restoration. The impugned order, restoring the suit which is passed without giving notice and opportunity, is wholly unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The learned Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein before disposal of the application afresh, in accordance with law. The matter is accordingly remitted to the Mobile Court. As the suit is of the year 1966, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the application for restoration within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 14th November, 2011 Lrkm.