ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 16th October 2023 I.A. No. 82 of 2012 in O.S.No.295/2007 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge at Kalwakurthy.

2. Petitioner is defendant and respondent is plaintiff in the suit filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule lands. Respondent filed I.A.No.82 of 2012 in O.S.No.295 of 2007 to condone the delay of 683 days in filing the petition for restoration of suit which was dismissed for default on 22.10.2010, contending that he fell sick for a long time and subsequently, his advocate had been to USA, therefore, he could not know the dates of hearing of suit and that the Court was pleased to adjourn the suit on payment of costs. Since respondent could not know the same, the suit was dismissed for default for non-appearance. It was further contended that the advocate while leaving India entrusted the case to another advocate in Mahaboobnagar to represent before the court, however, the said advocate could not represent the case.

3. On the other hand, revision petitioner/defendant opposed the said petition by filing counter affidavit contenting that the said petition is filed with a delay of 683 days i.e. more than two years from the date of dismissal.

Further it was contented that I.A.No.82 of 2012 was already dismissed for default on 06.12.2013, therefore, respondent filed I.A.No.26 of 2015 to condone the delay of 465 days in filing petition to restore I.A.No.82 of 2012 and the said was allowed on 22.3.2018 by imposing costs of Rs.1000/-. It was further contended that respondent did not file any evidence to support the reasons mentioned therein and he failed to explain the delay. Respondent never exuded any interest in prosecuting the case and did not show any satisfactory explanation to restore the suit. Further it is contended that the suit is of 2007 and is more than 11-year-old, as such the same cannot be restored.

4. The trial Court having considered the submissions of both the parties and upon perusing the material available on record, allowed the petition on payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to petitioner on or before 02.11.2023 and thereby condoned the delay of 683 days.

5. Sri.P. Sashi Kiran, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that respondent was not diligent in pursuing the matter before the Court below which is evident from the fact that he filed the said petition to condone delay of 683 days in filing restoration petition and the said petition was also dismissed for default for non-appearance on 06.12.2013.

Further, respondent filed I.A.No.26 of 2015 in I.A.No.82 of 2012 to restore I.A.No.82 of 2012 and the same was allowed on 22.03.2018 on payment of costs of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner herein filed Civil Revision Petition No.3983 of 2018, wherein this Court, by order dated 17.12.2018, modified the order in I.A.No.26 of 2015 with a direction to respondent\/Plaintiff to pay Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.1000/-

to petitioner in the trial court within a period of 10 days; on such payment, the learned Senior Civil Judge was directed to take up I.A.No.82 of 2012 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Thereafter, respondent filed I.A.No.59 of 2018 in I.A.No.82 of 2012 under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C seeking to restore I.A.No.82 of 2012, duly setting aside the dismissal order dated 06.12.2013. By order dated 06.03.2019, the Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar allowed the said I.A. on costs of Rs.1000/- to be paid to petitioner on or before 14.03.2019.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Sri P.V. Raghu Ram contended that respondent was suffering from ill-health for a long time and also since his advocate travelled to USA, he could not know the suit dates, as a result, the said suit was dismissed for default on 22.10.2010 due to non-appearance of r