H C UPADHYA Vs. A R RUSTOM FRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 21-7-2004 passed by the learned III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in LA. No.114 of 2004 in O.S.No.4089 of 2003.

(2.) At the stage of admission, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had taken notice and addressed arguments for the final disposal of the revision petition.

(3.) The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondents filed the suit for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed ex parte. The petitioner, therefore, filed I.A.No.1171 of 2003 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'the Code'). After having heard on either side, the Court below allowed that application on 21-1-2004 on the condition of the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards costs within 8 days from the date of that order. On the premise that on account of the sad demise of the grandmother of the petitioner's Counsel, the Counsel could not deposit the amount within the time and that despite the tragedy the Counsel rushed to the Court and offered the amount of Rs.1,000/- to the Counsel of his adversary who refused to receive the same and that when the matter was brought to the notice of the Court, the Court advised the Counsel to file a petition seeking leave to deposit the costs in the legal aid section, the petitioner filed I.A No.114 of 2004 seeking permission of the Court to deposit the amount pursuant to the conditional order passed earlier. That application having been dismissed under the impugned order, the petitioner is now seeking to assail the same.