ORDER :

1. Heard the counsel for petitioners, and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, counsel for respondents.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dt.04.07.2017 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.144 of 2015 on the file the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, confirming the order dt.04.04.2014 passed in Interlocutory Application No.242 of 2012 in Original Suit No.1329 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Lal Bahadur Nagar, Hyderabad.

3. The petitioners herein are defendant nos.1 to 6 in the above suit.

4. The 1st respondent herein filed the said suit against petitioners and 4th respondent for perpetual injunction restraining petitioners from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

5. After receipt of summons, petitioners engaged a counsel by name Sri Police Venkat Reddy and Sri M. Bheeshma Chary, Advocates, to defend them.

6. On the ground that no Written Statement was filed by petitioners, they were set ex parte, and an ex parte order was passed on 23.01.2012.

7. Within thirty (30) days from the said date, on 21.02.2012 itself petitioners filed I.A.No.242 of 2012 under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 stating that the counsel engaged by them did not inform them about the suit proceedings; that they are not wellversed with legal proceedings; and so, they could not participate in the proceedings.

8. No counter-affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent to the said I.A.

9. On 04.04.2014, Interlocutory Application No.242 of 2012 was dismissed by the Trial Court stating that petitioners did not produce reliable evidence to show willful negligence on the part of counsel on record, and they did not explain reason why they did not approach the Court within the stipulated period of limitation. It held that petitioners themselves were negligent in proceeding with the matter.

10. Challenging the same, petitioners filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.144 of 2015 in the Court of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar.

11. On 04.07.2017, the lower appellate court also dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal without even considering the reason assigned by petitioners for their non-appearance by observing that along with Interlocutory Application No.242 of 2012, petitioners did not file Written Statement, and they merely stated that they are ready to file Written Statement.

12. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

13. The counsel for petitioners contended that when the petitioners engaged counsel since they were not well-versed with the Court proceedings and since they were not advised that Written Statement ought to be filed within (30) days, they could not file Written Statement within the time stipulated; and when the petitioners filed the Interlocutory Application No.242 of 2012 under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 within the time of (30) days prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963, the Trial Court ought not to have dismissed it on the ground that petitioners did not file the said application within the stipulated period of limitation.

14. The counsel for petitioners also contended that the lower Appellate Court did not even go into the reason assigned for not filing Written Statement in the suit, and dismissed the appeal on the ground that petitioners were not ready to file Written Statement in the suit.

15. On the other hand, the counsel for respondents refuted the said contentions and contended that in spite of several opportunities being given, the petitioners did not avail them to file Written Statement and contest the suit; and therefore, they should be denied relief in the Revision.

16. I have noted the contentions of both sides.

17. It is an admitted fact that I.A.No.242 of 2012 filed under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was filed within thirty (30) days of passing of the ex parte decr