Oral Judgment: Heard Sri P.V. Vidyasagar, learned counsel representing the appellant and Ms. Vasireddy Vijaya, learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed as against an order dated 18.2.2003 in IA.No.778 of 2001 OS.No.138 of 2000 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. The said order reads as hereunder: “Petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 and Section 151 CPC prays to set aside the ex parte decree dated 31.1.2001 and allow this petitioner to participate in the suit. Petitioner’s counsel reported no instructions. Petitioner called absent. Petition is dismissed for default”. 3. Sri P.V. Vidyasagar, learned counsel representing the appellant would submit that apart from the application IA.No.776 of 2001 in OS No.138 of 2000, which was filed for setting aside the ex parte decree, since there was some delay in moving the application, an application IA No.778 of 2001 was filed for condonation of delay and on the same set of facts in the light of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application IA.No.776 of 2001, the application was allowed and the delay was condoned. The affidavit filed in support of the application IA No.778 of 2001 also being on similar lines, instead of allowing the application, the learned Judge, on the ground that the counsel reported no instructions, had dismissed the application and hence it cannot be sustained. 4. Per contra, Ms. Vasireddy Vijaya, learned counsel representing the respondents, while making elaborate submissions, pointed out that when the counsel reported no instructions, the Court was left with no other option except to dismiss the application for default and hence the impugned order cannot be found fault with. The learned counsel also had pointed out several other factual details touching the merits and demerits of the matter. 5. Heard the counsel. 6. This Court on 12.9.2003 in CMP No.20634 of 2003 granted interim stay of execution on condition of the appellant depositing the suit costs. An application in CMAMP No.2130 of 2006 was filed to vacate the same on the ground that the E.P. was filed and possession also had been delivered. 5. Heard the counsel. 6. This Court on 12.9.2003 in CMP No.20634 of 2003 granted interim stay of execution on condition of the appellant depositing the suit costs. An application in CMAMP No.2130 of 2006 was filed to vacate the same on the ground that the E.P. was filed and possession also had been delivered. It was recorded that it is not in dispute that the appellant had complied with the said conditions interim order and in view of the same and having regard to the nature of the suit and the decree being ex parte and also the substantial rights of the parties being involved, the interim stay granted on 12.9.2003 was made absolute. 7. It is no doubt true that when the counsel on record reported no instructions, the learned Judge was left with no other option except to dismiss the application for default. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, when an application for condonation of delay on similar set of facts already had been allowed, dismissed the application to set aside the ex parte decree based on the self-same facts, without applying the mind and just dismissing the application mechanically since the counsel reported no instructions, may not be just and equitable. Even otherwise, it is stated that the conditional interim order passed by this Court had been complied with. In the facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate to give opportunity to the parties to contest the litigation. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby allowed. No costs.