Telangana High Court
Sri Mandala Ravinder Reddy vs Smt Joginapally Saraswati on 9 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
C.M.A.No.48 OF 2025
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal has been filed aggrieved by the order
dated 26.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.66 of 2023 in O.S.No.1258 of
2017, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy
at L.B. Nagar
2. Heard Sri B.N. Swamiji, learned counsel for appellant and
Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Appellant herein is plaintiff and respondents herein are
defendants before the trial Court. For convenience, the parties
hereinafter the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before
the trial Court.
4. The brief facts of the present appeal are that the plaintiff
filed O.S.No.1258 of 2017 for specific performance of Agreement of
sale, against the defendants. Defendants entered appearance and
filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint. Issues
were framed and matter was coming up for trial since 27.01.2022
the plaintiff had been taking time for adducing evidence and finally
the matter was posted to 03.01.2023 conditionally. On
03.01.2023, plaintiff failed to adduce evidence and there was no
LNA,J
representation on his behalf, therefore, trial Court dismissed the
suit for default. Later, plaintiff filed I.A.No.66 of 2023, under Order
IX, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., to set aside the
dismissal order dated 03.01.2023 and restore the suit. In the
affidavit, filed in support of the application, it was averred that
plaintiff was out of station and learned Senior Counsel was
hospitalized and the junior counsel was held up in another Court
and therefore, no alternative arrangement was made to represent
the matter and that non-representation was neither intentional nor
wanton.
5. Defendants filed counter resisting the aforesaid application
and contended that reasons stated by the plaintiff are untenable
and not acceptable, therefore, application is liable to be dismissed.
It was further averred that suit was coming up for trial since
27.01.2022, and the plaintiff was not present before the Court to
proceed with the case and despite the conditional order, plaintiff
failed to adduce the evidence and was protracting the matter to
harass the defendants
6. The trial Court, on due consideration of the pleadings and
submissions made by both the parties, dismissed the said
application vide impugned order dated 26.12.2024 with an
LNA,J
observation that despite taking nearly one year time, plaintiff failed
to commence trial and has been taking time on one pretext or
other, which clearly shows that plaintiff is not diligent in
prosecuting the case and thus, dismissed the application.
Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.12.2024, present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that counsel on
record for plaintiff was hospitalized for treatment of glaucoma and
his junior was held up in another Court and therefore, they could
not represent the matter before the trial Court on 03.01.2023. He
further submitted that despite explaining the reasons for non-
appearance, trial Court has dismissed the application erroneously.
Learned counsel further contended that appellant is ready to
commence trial, without taking further time on any date and also
ready to comply with any condition which may be imposed by this
Court and prayed to allow the appeal.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended
that suit was coming up for trial since 27.01.2022 and plaintiff had
been taking time on one pretext or other and despite the
conditional order, plaintiff failed to commence trial on 03.01.2023
and there was no representation on behalf of plaintiff, therefore,
LNA,J
trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit for default. Learned
counsel further contended that counsel for the plaintiff could not
represent the matter as he has hospitalized, however, plaintiff was
not diligent in prosecuting the case and no valid reasons have been
shown for the absence of the plaintiff, despite posting of the case
conditionally, which clearly shows that plaintiff is not interested in
prosecuting the case. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to seek
indulgence of this Court and appeal is liable to be dismissed as the
same is devoid of any merit.
9. Perusal of the record would disclose that suit was coming up
for trial since 27.01.2022 and plaintiff did not commence the trial
even after lapse of one year and the suit was posted to 03.01.2023
conditionally and even on that day, neither plaintiff was present,
nor there was any representation on his behalf, therefore, trial
Court dismissed the suit for default. In the affidavit, filed in
support of the application, except stating that plaintiff was out of
station and learned Senior Counsel was hospitalized and junior
counsel was held up in another Court, plaintiff failed to place any
material on record to substantiate his contention and also failed to
offer plausible explanation and cogent reasons for not adducing the
evidence since 27.01.2022. From the facts and circumstances of
LNA,J
the case, it can be said that plaintiff is not diligent in prosecuting
the case and has failed to offer cogent, convincing reasons for his
absence and also non-representation on his behalf on 03.01.2023.
Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the trial Court.
10. In view of the above submission made by the counsel on
either sides, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date:09 .06.2025
Tssb/dr
