IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO C.M.A. No.257 of 2021 Dt.12.12.2025 Between:

Yelle Laxmi Narayana …. Appellant And Annaram Lavanya …Respondent JUDGMENT:

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the order, dt.09.03.2021, passed in IA.No.359 of 2019 in OS.No.50 of 2018 filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC on the file of the IX Additional District Judge at Sircilla, to set aside the dismissal of the suit, dt.11.12.2019.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, a suit in OS.No.50 of 2018 on the file of the IX Additional District Judge at Sircilla was filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking damages for defamation against the respondent/defendant and pleadings were complete and the suit was being adjourned from time to time for trial. That on 11.12.2019, when the suit was posted for the evidence of the appellant/plaintiff, he was called absent and the counsel for defendant were present and again the case was called at 2.00 pm., there was neither representation of the appellant/plaintiff nor any affidavits in lieu of examination was filed, though issues were framed as early as on 09.08.2017 and the suit was posted for evidence of appellant/plaintiff. Since there was no representation by the appellant/plaintiff, the trial Court dismissed the suit under Order IX Rule 8 of CPC.

3. As against the said order, the appellant had filed the underlying application vide IA.No.359 of 2019 under Order IX Rule 9 CPC seeking to set aside the dismissal order, dt.11.12.2019 and to restore the suit to the file of the Court.

4. The trial Court upon considering the underlying application and the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/defendant, having not satisfied with the grounds mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the said application, dismissed the said application on 09.03.2021, and against the said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

5. I have heard, Sri V.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri R.Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondent, given earnest consideration to their respective submissions and perused the material on record.

6. As seen from the order of the IX Additional District Judge at Sircilla, it appears that the appellant/plaintiff having filed the suit in 2018, has been taking time to lead evidence in the suit for one reason or other without commencing trial and on the date when the suit was posted, the appellant/plaintiff was called absent and there was no representation, hence the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution.

7. Though the trial Court has observed that the appellant/plaintiff has been dragging the case intentionally and the reasons stated by the appellant that he was not well and could not appear seems to be not a proper reason for setting aside the dismissal order, the trial Court ought to have seen that there was no delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC and mere technicalities should not defeat the legitimate claim of the party and to put an end to the lis a full- fledged trial is necessary, and therefore, the trial Court ought to have given one last opportunity to the appellant/plaintiff to decide the suit on merits.

8. In such view of the matter, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, and the order dt.09.03.2021 passed in IA.No.359 of 2019 in OS.No.50 of 2018 on the file of the IX Additional District Judge at Sircilla as well as the order dt.11.12.2019 passed in the said suit OS.No.50 of 2018 are both set aside and the suit is restored to the file of the trial Court, subject to the appellant/plaintiff paying costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority within a period two weeks from today. Upon proof of such payment being filed before the trial Court, the trial Court shall restore the suit to its file by fixing the next date of hearing as 21.01.2026, on which date, the app