APHC010509312023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2672/2023 Between: 1. PATNALA VENKATA RAMANA, S/O LAXMANA RAO, AGED 35 YEARS, C/O BALU TAILORS, RAMKRISHNA THEATRE LANE, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. MACHARLA SREERAM MURTHY, S/o Appala Swamy, aged 48 years, Occ. Teacher, R/o H. No. 40, Adithya Nagar Colony, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to argued at the time of hearing of the above Civil Revision Petition is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 21.07.2023 passed in un-numbered I.A. No. /2023 in I.A. No. 1306/2017 in O.S. No. 63/2017 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam in the interest of justice and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARINADH NIDAMANURI Counsel for the Respondent: 2 1. The Court made the following: ORDER: Assailing the correctness and legality of the orders passed in unnumbered I.A. of 2023 in I.A.No.1306 of 2017 in O.S.No.63 of 2017 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, dated 21.07.2023, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition are that the petitioner is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in a suit vide O.S.No.63 of 2017 filed for recovery of money. In the said suit, as the petitioner/defendant was set ex parte and the suit has been decreed on 31.07.2017, he filed I.A.No.1306 of 2017 under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the said ex parte decree order dated 31.07.2017. The Court below under its order dated 14.09.2022 allowed the said application on the condition that the defendant shall pay costs of Rs.100/- to the respondent on or before 14.10.2022 failing which the said application shall stand dismissed. As the petitioner/defendant could not pay the said amount to the plaintiff, filed the subject unnumbered I.A. of 2023 under Order IX Rule 9 along with Section 5 of Limitation Act praying the Court to condone the delay of 186 days in filing the petition to set aside the order dated 14.10.2022. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3 3. Heard Sri N.Harinadh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the I.A before the Court below and the grounds of revision submitted that the ex parte decree has been passed by the Court below in a suit for recovery of money vide O.S.No.63 of 2017 assailing which application vide I.A.No.1306 of 2017 has been filed praying the Court below to set aside the said order and the said application has been allowed on 14.10.2022 on condition of the petitioner/defendant paying costs of Rs.100/- to the respondent/plaintiff else the said application stands dismissed. As the petitioner/defendant failed to pay the said costs, he filed another I.A. which was not numbered praying the Court to set aside the said order dated 14.10.2022 and the same has been dismissed by the Court below erroneously. He further submitted that if no opportunity to defend the case is given, his rights would be affected, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. It is very surprising to see that the I.A. which is dismissed was neither numbered nor CFR number was given. Further, meager amount of Rs.100/- was not paid by the petitioner/defendant and by virtue of the same I.A.No.1306 of 2017 was dismissed. Further, the reason for 4 dismissing the present unnumbered I.A. is that the petitioner has not explained the delay. No doubt the petitioner did not plead properly nor mentioned any reasons for nonpayment/ in not complying the directions of the Court below in I.A.No.1306 of 2017, however, as the petitioner’s substantial rights are involved, the Court should not have dismissed the said I.A. In the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the CRP by allowing the unnumbered I.A. subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff. The said amount shall be paid within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such payment, I.A. shall be restored and the Court shall proceed with the suit. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 07th May, 2026 RKS