This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 15.09.2011 in I.A. No.937 of 2010 in O.P. No.183 of 2009 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet. The appellants herein are the petitioners and the respondents herein are the respondents in the I.A. as well as in the O.P.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the I.A. as well as in the O.P.

3. The O.P. is filed under Section 23 of Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 before the trial Court seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to furnish correct audited accounts of respondent No.1 society from the period of their taking charge, convene the general body meeting and to conduct the elections, and if finds any misappropriation, respondents 2 and 3 may be directed to make good of the amounts by depositing the same with interest in the account of respondent No.1-society. However, the O.P. was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.07.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present I.A. under Order IX, Rule 9, read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) for restoration of the O.P.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the O.P. was posted on 16.07.2010 for filing chief examination affidavit of petitioner No.1 as PW.1, but due to ill-health of his wife at Hyderabad, he stayed back at Hyderabad and that petitioner No.2 was also out of station due to his business work, as such, they could not appear before the Court on 16.7.2010 and the same was informed to their counsel and instructed him to take adjournment, and as such, their counsel filed an application under Section 148 read with 151 of CPC to grant fifteen (15) days time to lead the evidence, however, the trial Court without passing any order in the application, has dismissed the O.P. for nonappearance of the petitioners on 16.07.2010 holding that the O.P. was posted conditionally to lead evidence. After coming to know about the dismissal of the O.P., the petitioners filed the present I.A. for restoration of the O.P.

5. It is the case of the respondents that the application filed for restoration of the O.P. by the petitioners is only to drag on the matter and that the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the application are not tenable in the eye of law or facts of the case. The petitioners neither gave justifiable reasons nor produced any substantial proof with regard to their absence on 16.07.2012 before the Court.

6. After enquiry, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. holding that the petitioners have taken several adjournments from 10.08.2009 to 01.07.2010 and that even when the O.P. was posted conditionally on 16.07.2010, they could not turn up, and as such, the petitioners are not interested to proceed with the O.P. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application for restoration of the O.P. without taking into consideration its serious repercussions on the welfare of respondent No.1 society and that the trial Court ought to have given ample opportunity to adjudicate the O.P. on merits. It is contended that the trial Court ought not to have observed in the interlocutory application that the O.P. has become infructuous without there being any material on record. It is also contended that the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the O.P. on 16.07.2010 without passing any order in the application filed by the counsel for the petitioners under Section 148 read with Section 151 of CPC on the same day to grant fifteen (15) days time. It is further contended that the trial Court ought to have seen that there are serious allegations against respondents 2 and 3, as president and secretary of respondent No.1 society r