APHC011365472016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Between: Mucheli Bhaskar Reddy Mucheli Ramachandra Reddy and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V JAGAPATHI 2. C SUNIL KUMAR REDDY 3. D KRISHNA MURTHY 4. The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 88/2025 ...APPELLANT AND Mucheli Ramachandra Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): C SUNIL KUMAR REDDY D KRISHNA MURTHY The Court made the following: [3311] THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 BSB, J C.M.A.No.88 of 2025 JUDGMENT: This appeal by the appellant/petitioner/plaintiff is filed under Order XLIII, rule 1 CPC against the order, dated 01.10.2015, dismissing I.A.No.1155 of 2014 in O.S.No.54 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, filed under Order IX, rule 9 CPC to restore the suit which is dismissed for default on 30.01.2014. 2. Though notices were received by respondents No.1 to 3, no appearance has been made. Though respondent No.4 appeared through a counsel, there was no representation for the respondent No.4 and no arguments were advanced on her behalf. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for respondent/defendant No.5. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and defendant for convenience and clarity. 4. The case of the plaintiff, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, in brief, is as follows: a. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession. The defendants 1 to 3 are relatives of the plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5 are the purchasers/3rd parties. The plaintiff filed petition in I.A.No.195 of 2010 to add the proposed respondents 6 to 9 as defendants 6 to 9 who are the subsequent purchasers of the joint Hindu family properties. The petition was allowed by the trial court. As the proposed defendants are evading receipt of summons, substituted service of notice by way of paper publication was taken out in ‘Prajasakthi’ telugu daily. 3 BSB, J C.M.A.No.88 of 2025 b. Thereafter, due to Samaikyandhra agitation, the plaintiff was unable to follow up his case. He was informed by his counsel that the matter was posted to 30.01.2014 for his appearance. Though the plaintiff waited till 12 noon on 30.01.2024, his name was not called on that day. Thereafter, he came to know that his case was called and dismissed for default on 30.01.2014 itself. Hence, this petition to restore the suit, which was dismissed for default on 30.01.2014, was filed. c. The defendant No.5 filed counter opposing the petition and stating that the petition was not within the time and was filed beyond 30 days from the date of dismissal and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. The plaintiff has not properly explained his absence on 30.01.2014. The petition is not bona fide and it was filed only to harass the defendant with a view to obtain wrongful gain. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The trial Court, after hearing both parties, dismissed the suit by the impugned order. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “ As this Court has given sufficient opportunities to the plaintiff to take proper steps to prosecute the suit, in spite of it the plaintiff has not taken any steps and there is no representation for the plaintiff, therefore restoration of suit of the year 2009 in the year 2015 is not just and proper and this Court need not facilitate the plaintiff to proceed the suit as per his convenience to prolong the litigation. Hence the petition is dismissed with costs.” 6. Hence, this appeal is filed by the aggrieved plaintiff. 4 BSB, J C.M.A.No.88 of 2025 7. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that due to agitation severely held throughout the state due to ‘Samaikyandhra movement’, the appellant was unable to effectively get the matter represented, however, without appreciating the same, merely because, the matter had undergone several adjournments, the suit was dismissed. He further submitted that the appellant shortly after dismissal of the suit filed the petition for restoration of the suit which shows bona fides on his part to get the matter disposed of on merits. He further submitted that at the time of dismissal of the suit, it was coming up for steps to be taken for publication of notice to the proposed parties/defendants 6 to 9 and there were no laches at all on the part of the plaintiff. He further submitted that in fact on that day, the party was present, however, his presence was not recorded as was the same position on the previous occasions also. But, to the misfortune of the plaintiff, all such proceedings would show lapses on the part of the plaintiff. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent contended that the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition as there were deliberate laches on the part of the plaintiff. He further submitted that respondents 1 to 3 are relatives of the appellant/plaintiff and so, they do not have any interest in the matter as they had already sold the properties whereas respondents 4 & 5 are purchasers and are likely to be effected by the suit. He further submitted that except to delay the adjudication, there were no merits in filing the petition. 9. The trial Court in its order recorded that since 26.06.2013 to 30.01.2014, the suit had been adjourned from time to time for paper publication to issue notices to defendants 6 to 9 and in spite of ten (10) adjournments, there had been no representation nor had three been 5 BSB, J C.M.A.No.88 of 2025 steps taken before dismissing the suit for default. Therefore, the trial Court opined that in spite of sufficient opportunity given to the plaintiff, there was no response. 10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant during the relevant period which the trial Court recorded it is common knowledge that there was severe movement of Samaikyandhra and ultimately, the State of Andhra Pradesh was divided into two states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana with effect from 02.06.2014. During the process of agitation, many of the employees including those working with the State Government as well as the Courts participated in the agitation and there were restrictions on the movement of the general public sometimes due to agitation. However, without considering all such facts, the trial Court dismissed the petition only with the observation that the plaintiff failed to represent and take steps on those occasions. Therefore, it is a fit case to allow the petition, however, as the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly, it is a case fit to interfere with the impugned order. 11. However, due to the inconvenience caused to the contesting defendants, the petition can be allowed subject to certain terms as costs. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order, dated 01.10.2015, passed in I.A.No.1155 of 2015 in O.S.No.54 of 2009, however, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay the respondents 4 & 5 a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the appeal stands dismissed without any further orders. 6 BSB, J C.M.A.No.88 of 2025 There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J 20-02-2025 RAR