ORDER
A. Gopal Reddy, J.
1. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the orders passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, dt.23-6-2004 IA(SR) No. 5549/ 2004 in OP (SR) No. 2249/2004, whereunder petition filed for restoration of OP (SR) No. 2249/2004 was returned.
2. The petitioner herein, as an indigent person, filed above OP (SR) No. 2249/2004 under Order VII Rule 1 and under Order 33 r/w Section 26 CPC seeking damages for an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- from the respondents, before the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Office returned the same with certain objections on 9-3-2004. The petitioner again resubmitted the same on 31 -3-2004. When the trial court called the said OP on Bench on 9-4-2004, the petitioner called absent, therefore the trial court rejected the said OP. On such rejection, the petitioner filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 9 r/w 151 CPC for setting aside the rejection order dt.9-4-2004 passed in the OP. The said petition was returned by order dt.23-6-2004. Questioning the same, the petitioner as party-in-person filed the present revision petition.
3. As the party-in-person is not conversant with the law to represent his case before the court, this court referred the matter to the Legal Services Authority, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for engaging an advocate on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, Legal Services Authority appointed Mrs. Shanthi Neelam as counsel to defend the case of the petitioner.
4. Though no notice was issued against the respondent No. 1, Mr. Mohammed Abdul Qadar appeared on behalf of R-1. He contends that since the petition for restoration of OP (SR) is not filed within the statutory period of 30 days, the same is liable to be rejected. He further contends that against an order passed on the petitioner filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, only an appeal lies but not revision.
5. So far as first submission is concerned, it is for the lower court to consider and decide whether the petition filed by the petitioner is within the time prescribed or not or it is filed after excluding the time spent in obtaining copy or from the knowledge. The second submission that against an order passed on the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC only appeal lies cannot be accepted for the reason the petition was returned.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dt.23-6-2004 in IA (SR) No. 5549/2004 in OP (SR) No. 2249/2004 returning the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 1 CPC is set-aside and the petition is restored to its original file. On such restoration, learned Judge shall dispose of the petition according to law. If the petitioner wants legal aid to prosecute his case, learned Judge shall provide legal assistance for conducting the case.
7. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed.