APHC010253892020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 1044/2020 Between: Kamineninagabhushana Reddy ...PETITIONER AND Kamineni Sreenivasa Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. K NARSI REDDY The Court made the following: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 08.01.2020, passed in I.A.No.475 of 2015 in O.S.No.125 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda; wherein the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the I.A. No.475 of 2019, which was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking to set-aside the dismiss for default order, dated 29.09.2015, passed in O.S. No.125 of 2012. 2 2. Heard. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that O.S. No.125 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to declare his entitlement to a right of pre- emption regarding the property in the plaint schedule and to obtain possession from the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant. The suit was dismissed for default on 29.09.2015 due to the non-appearance of the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently filed I.A.No.475 of 2015under Order 9, Rule 9 of the CPC to restore the suit. This application was dismissed by order dated 08.01.2020. Questioning this dismissal, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contends that on 29.09.2015, he attended the funeral service of a family member, which was not communicated to his counsel on record, resulting in the matter being dismissed for default. Learned counsel further asserts that he has a strong case on the merits. The property in question is a house with Door No.10/820 located in Nandyal District, encompassing a total area of 399 sq. ft., thus making it a valuable asset. Dueto the impugned default order, the petitioner/plaintiff faces irreparable loss and mental anguish and, therefore, requests that the suit be restored to the file. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contends that the petitioner did not furnish sufficient reasons for his absence. Though multiple opportunities had been provided to the petitioner for adducing evidence, the petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court. The trial Court, while 3 dismissing the I.A.No.475 of 2015, rejected the petitioner’s version and stated that there were no grounds to allow the application and finally argued that there was no illegality in the impugned order to interfere by this Court. 6. Upon perusal of the record, the Court finds that the declaration suit involving the plaintiff's rights was dismissed without addressing the substantive issues. However, the plaintiff affirmed his affidavit as chief evidence designated as PW.1, and the matter was scheduled for document marking and the cross-examination of PW.1 on 09.03.2015. Subsequently, the learned judge granted several adjournments and rescheduled the matter for the plaintiff, ultimately dismissing it for default on 29.09.2015. No conditions were imposed on the petitioner when the matter was adjourned on 11-9-2015. If the court had imposed conditions on the plaintiff, his counsel would have taken the necessary steps for the adjournment. On the adjournment date, 29-09-2015, the plaintiff was attending to the obsequies of family members, which, according to this court, constitutes reasonable grounds for intervention by imposing certain conditions before dismissing the suit proceedings. 7. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and the order, dated 08.01.2020, passed in I.A. No.475 of 2015 in O.S.No.125 of 2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, is hereby set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the A.P. High Court Advocates’ Association, Amaravati within a period of two (2) weeks from today, failing which, this order shall stand vacated. Further, the trial Court is 4 directed to dispose of the suit in O.S. No.125 of 2012 within six (6) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, considering that the suit was of the year 2012 and has been pending for more than 12 years. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 19.03.2025 SNI 5 106 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1044/2020 Date:19.03.2025 SNI