1. This Court ordered Notice Before Admission on 13.03.2008 and granted interim stay for a limited period, which is being extended from time to time. Sri Balagopal entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.

2. The respondents in the revision petition filed C.M.P.No.3057 of 2008 with a prayer to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court. At the stage of hearing of the application to vacate the interim stay, Sri Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri Balagopal, representing the respondents made elaborate submissions and also made a further request to dispose of the revision petition itself finally. Hence, the revision petition is being disposed of finally by this Court with the consent of both the counsel.

3. Sri Rathangapani Reddy, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decree made by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, (Fast Track Court) to be taken as a decree made on merits and the only remedy available to the respondents/defendants may be to prefer an appeal and the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience) is not maintainable. The learned counsel would also maintain that the respondents/defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and they had cross-examined the plaintiff's witnesses as well, but failed to adduce their evidence in spite of repeated adjournments and this fact had also been recorded by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal (FTC). Even in this view of the matter, the application, which had been filed to set aside the ex parte decree being a misconceived remedy, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal (FTC) should have dismissed the application instead of allowing the same on condition of the defendants paying Rs.250/- to the plaintiff or his counsel and also on a further condition that the defendant should get ready for trial and produce all the evidence on 03.03.2008, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the language employed under Order XVII Rule 2 and Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code and would maintain that the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal (FTC) had not appreciated these provisions in proper perspective and hence the impugned order may be set aside and the revision petition to be allowed. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

4. Per contra, Sri Balagopal, the learned counsel representing the respondents had taken this Court through Order XVII Rule 2 and Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code as well and laid emphasis on the A.P. Amendments appended to both Order XVII Rule 2 and Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code, and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances, of the case, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal (FTC) arrived at the correct notation while allowing I.A.No.642 of 2007 in O.S.No.396 of 2003 giving liberty to the respondents to adduce evidence by fixing the date. The learned counsel would also maintain that it may be true that the matter might have been adjourned on certain occasions and may be that was the reason why the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal (FTC) while allowing the application on payment of costs, fixed the date for production of evidence, in fact in a way this is a conditional order. Hence in the light of the facts and circumstances, since the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code being maintainable the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

5. Heard the counsel on record and perused the reasons recorded by the learned Additional Senior Civil J