HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL MICELLANESOUS APPEAL No.468 of 2024

JUDGMENT

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 24.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.186 of 2023 in O.S.No.571 of 2007 on the file the V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the appellants under Order IX Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of CPC was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri M.Rajender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Suresh Bhaktula, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs, and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Appeal are that the plaintiffs instituted the suit in O.S.No.571 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for partition and separate possession of suit schedule property. The defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement and the matter was coming up for evidence of the plaintiffs, however, as the plaintiffs failed to appear and adduce evidence, the suit was dismissed for default on 04.06.2014.

5. The plaintiffs filed an application vide I.A.No.186 of 2023 under Order IX Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC, for restoration of the suit by setting aside the order dated 04.06.2014, along with an application vide I.A.No.610 of 2019 for condonation of delay of 1812 days in filing the restoration application. The application-I.A.No.610 of 2019 was allowed vide order dated 31.01.2023, however, the application filed for restoration of the suit i.e., I.A.No.186 of 2023 was dismissed vide order dated 24.06.2024, with an observation that the plaintiffs have approached the Court blaming their previous counsel and were not diligent in pursuing the matter and it is the duty of the plaintiffs to be present before the Court and thus, there is clear negligence on the part of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Appeal is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed for restoration of the suit without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

He further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the fact that the application filed by the plaintiffs for condonation of delay was allowed on the same grounds on which the application for restoration is also filed, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the suit was transferred from the Court where it was originally instituted, i.e., the Court of the II Additional District Judge, to the Court of V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, and the plaintiffs were not informed of the said fact by their previous counsel and as such, the plaintiffs could not properly prosecute their case. He further submitted that for the mistake/default and misleading on the part of their previous counsel, the plaintiffs should not be put to loss as their substantial rights are involved and accordingly, prayed to allow the Appeal.

7. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the plaintiffs were not diligent in pursuing the matter and did not appear before the trial Court when the matter was coming up for marking of the documents on their behalf. He further submitted that the appellants/plaintiffs were not diligent in prosecuting the suit and for their default, they are simply throwing the blame on their previous counsel that he has not informed them about the status of the case. He further submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to make out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.

8. A perusal of the record would disclose that the