GURU MURTHY S Vs. R LAKSHMANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S.No.442/97 are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition (CRP). The suit was filed by the respondent/ plaintiff for recovery of certain amounts in the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The petitioners filed the written statement. However, during the subsequent proceedings, they remained absent. Consequently the trial Court decreed the suit ex parte on 10-2-1999.

(2.) The petitioners filed IA.210/99 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The trial Court dismissed the said IA through orders dated 12-8-1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed CMA.No.40/99 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The lower appellate Court on having been satisfied about the reasons, for the petitioners or their Counsel not being present on 10-2-1999, set aside the exparte decree through its order dated 8-11-99. However, while setting aside the ex parte decree, the lower appellate Court imposed a condition that the petitioners shall deposit 3/4ths of the decretal amount as well as costs. The petitioners are aggrieved by this condition and the same is challenged in this CRP.

(3.) Sri P. Satyanarayana, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that once the lower appellate Court was satisfied about the genuineness of the reasons on account of which the petitioners and their Counsel were not present in the Court, it ought to have simply set aside the ex parte decree and imposition of condition to deposit 3/4ths of the decretal amount is beyond the scope of the powers of the Court under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.