JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri A.Satya Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.Ashwin Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff - respondent No.1 and perused the material available on record.

2. In the present Revision, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the order dtd. 1/11/2023, passed by the Court of the XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Vijayawada, allowing I.A.No.262 of 2019 in O.S.No.191 of 2011, filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Respondent No.1 herein filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioners and four others, seeking the relief of specific performance of contract of sale deed. Suit schedule property, which consists of three items, is totally an extent of Ac.07.56 cents situated at Mantena Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District. The suit instituted by the respondent No.1 herein came to be dismissed by the learned XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Vijayawada, for non-prosecution. Seeking restoration of the suit, by setting aside the order of default, the plaintiff - respondent No.1 herein filed the instant Interlocutory Application under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the defendants - petitioners herein resisted the said application by filing counter. The learned XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Vijayawada, by way of the order impugned in the present Revision, allowed the said Interlocutory Application and consequently restored the suit. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri A.Satya Prasad, representing Sri Prakash Buddarapu, learned counsel for the petitioners on record, contends that the impugned order is highly erroneous, contrary to law and defeats the very object and intention of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure; that having regard to the negligence exhibited by the plaintiff in prosecuting the suit, the learned Judge grossly erred in allowing the application; that the impugned order is completely bereft of valid and convincing reasons, as such, the same is liable to be set aside; that the past conduct of the plaintiff also disentitles the plaintiff to claim the benefit of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure; that the learned Judge failed to take into consideration the contents/averments in the counter filed by the defendants opposing the Interlocutory Application for restoration; the respondent No.1-plaintiff did not show sufficient cause for non-appearance nor the Court recorded any satisfaction in terms of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure; that the learned Judge did not properly consider the parameters of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and eventually, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the impugned order is unreasonable. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the respondent No.1 ought not to have requested the Court for two reliefs in one application, namely, to set aside the dismissal order in the suit and also in Interlocutory Application.

5. To bolster his submissions and contentions, learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the following judgments:

1) Meena Chaudhary Vs. Commissioner of Delhi Police And Others, (2015) 2 SCC 145.

2) P.Arjun Vs. P.Subbaratanamma, 2022 SCC ONLINE AP 751.

3) Order dtd. 4/12/2012 in C.R.P.No.1610 and 1874 of 2012.

4) Order dtd. 24/9/1996 in C.R.P.No.266 of 1994.

5) T.Bhanumathi Vs. R.Hanumantha Rao (Died) and Ors., 1996 (1) ALT 52.

6. On the other hand, emphatically refuting the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - plaintiff that there is absolutely no error nor there exists any infirmity in the impugned order and in the absence of the same, the questioned order is not amenable for any correction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; that since the impugned order i