THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3663 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners who are the defendants in O.S.No.8 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, filed the present Civil Revision Petition questioning the order, dated 26.06.2009, passed in I.A.No.112 of 2009 in the said suit. The said suit was instituted by the respondent herein seeking the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. As the plaintiff was not evincing any interest, the Court below dismissed the said suit with costs on 02.03.2009. Subsequently, the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was numbered as I.A.No.112 of 2009 and the learned Judge having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, allowed the said application on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the respondents herein-the defendants. The same is questioned in this Civil Revision Petition. Sri J.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants, mainly contended that Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. has no application and if at all the plaintiff had any grievance, he ought to have resorted to Order 17 Rule 3 C.P.C. In the light of the said submissions, this Court looked into the said provisions of law. In my considered view, the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not correct. Order XVII Rule 2 C.P.C., which deals with the procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixed, states that where, on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any or them fail to appear, the Court may, in its discretion, proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes provided for under Order 9 CPC or make pass any such order as it thinks fit. Apparently, in this case, the plaintiff-the respondent herein was absent on 02.03.2009. As the reasons for his absence were not convincing, the Court below has taken a very serious view and dismissed the said suit. Even according to Order XVII Rule 2 C.P.C., if the Court feels that a party is not appearing on a day fixed by it, the Court shall resort to the provisions under Order 9 CPC only. The present application is filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte order, dated 02.03.2009. In those circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the impugned order is perfectly justified. However, the Court below did not allow the said application without any terms. It has specifically directed the party i.e., the respondent herein-plaintiff to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioners herein, who are the defendants. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order is not correct. In view of the above, I see no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, as the said suit is of the year 2003, the Court below is directed to give utmost priority to the said suit and decide the same at the earliest. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 29th October 2010 dr