Judgment : Heard Sri S. Balchand, learned counsel representing revision petitioner and Sri N.P. Sangam, learned counsel representing respondents. 2. The civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against an order dated 30th April 2008 made in I.A.No.154 of 2007 in O.S.No.141 of 2006 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 3. Respondents herein, the defendants in the suit, filed I.A.No.154 of 2007 in O.S.No.141 of 2006 aforesaid under Order IX Rule 13 read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte decree dated 17.12.2007 made in O.S.No.141 of 2006. The learned Judge having formulated the point for consideration at para 7, recorded reasons commencing from paras 8 to 18 and ultimately allowed the application without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner had preferred the present civil revision petition. 4. Sri S. Balchand, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had taken this Court through the language of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also the findings recorded by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, while allowing the application to set aside the ex parte decree and would maintain that the said cause would not constitute sufficient cause. The counsel also would maintain that even otherwise allowing the application to set aside ex parte decree without imposing any conditions, whatsoever, at least deposit of costs, also being erroneous at least the order impugned in the civil revision petition to be accordingly modified. The learned counsel placed reliance on certain decisions. 5. Per contra, Sri N.P. Sangam, learned counsel representing the respondents had taken this Court through the contents of the order impugned in the civil revision petition and the reasons recorded thereunder and would maintain that the discretion had been exercised by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, and normally such discretionary order not to be interfered with in a civil revision petition. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to para 18 of the order impugned in the present civil revision petition and would maintain that this ground of imposing some costs also had been advanced, but however, after recording certain reasons, the learned Judge was inclined to allow the application without costs. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to para 18 of the order impugned in the present civil revision petition and would maintain that this ground of imposing some costs also had been advanced, but however, after recording certain reasons, the learned Judge was inclined to allow the application without costs. In the light of the same, in view of the fact that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, whatsoever, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The civil revision petition as already aforesaid is preferred by respondent-plaintiff in I.A.No.154 of 2007 in O.S.No.141 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The said application was filed by the respondents herein as petitioners who are defendants in the said suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the application by the respondents in the present civil revision petition-petitioners-defendants it was stated that the suit was posted to 17.12.2007 for filing affidavit evidence in lieu of examination in chief of P.W.1. Copy of the affidavit was already served on respondents in the civil revision petition i.e., the petitioners and they had instructed the counsel to cross-examine P.W.1 if the court so directs. It is also stated that the counsel representing them had to make a mention before the High Court of A.P. before his Lordship G. Raghuram at 10.30 a.m and after making such mention he came to the Court at 11.30 a.m on 17.12.2007, but by that time the Court set the defendant ex parte and made an ex parte decree against the defendants. The delay in attending the court and default in attending the court being not intentional, but for bona fide reasons an application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed and a request was made to set aside such ex parte decree. 7. The delay in attending the court and default in attending the court being not intentional, but for bona fide reasons an application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed and a request was made to set aside such ex parte decree. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed it was stated that the deponent who filed affidavit is not competent to depose or swear the affidavit on behalf of other petitioners i.e., the other respondents in the civil revision petition and absolutely there is no explanation for their absence or their representatives looking after the conduct of the case and even if an advocate is engaged in another court that itself is not a ground for adjourning the case and hence there are no grounds to set aside the ex parte decree on such grounds and further the other facts also had been specifically denied and specific stand had been taken that no case of concerned counsel listed before Justice G. Raghuram on 17.12.2007 as per the printed cause list. The learned Judge, however, formulated the point for consideration at para 7, recorded reasons commencing paras from 8 to 18, referred to several decisions cited by the parties and came to the conclusion that the application to be allowed and accordingly allowed the application without costs. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that inasmuch as the ex parte decree was set aside, the trial of the suit is being further proceeded with at present. No doubt certain submissions were made in the context of the language employed in Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also strong reliance was placed on the decision in Gopal and Co., V. K. Soni and Durga Prasad Soni Vs. Kure Balarajaiah Siddiramulu, a firm rep. by its Managing Partner K. Siddiramulu ( 1994 (1) ALT 410 ) and V.K. Industries Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board ( AIR 2002 (SC) 1151 ). 8. In the light of elaborate reasons recorded by the learned Judge inasmuch as the discretion to set aside the ex parte decree had been exercised while exercising civil revision jurisdiction, that too, Article 227 of the Constitution of India, especially in the light of the limitations in exercising such supervisory revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India normally such discretionary orders not to be interfered with. It is not as though this ground relating to unconditionally allowing the application without imposing any costs or without any direction to deposit at least some amount. The same had been advanced before the learned Judge and certain reasons had been recorded. 9. When that being so, even in the light of the language of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure if carefully examined, especially the words “the court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into court or otherwise as it thinks fit” this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. It is also made clear that this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order for the reason that it is stated that at present the trial is being proceeded with. It is needless to say that in the light of the facts and circumstances, let the learned Judge dispose of the suit at the earliest point of time, preferably within a period of two months from today. 10. Subject to the above observation, the civil revision petition shall stand dismissed. No costs.