HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P. NO.1066 OF 2003 DATED: 18.06.2010 BETWEEN: K.Shesharatnam and others .. Petitioner And E.Radha and others .. Respondents HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P. NO.1066 OF 2003 This civil revision petition is filed against the orders dated 04.12.2002 passed by the senior Civil Judge, Manthini in I.A.No.123 of 2002 in O.S.No.4 of 2001. 2. The plaintiffs are the revision petitioners and they filed the suit before the Subordinate Judge, Peddapally for declaration that they are the owners and possessors of the suit lands entitled for compensation payable for the suit land on acquisition by the S.C.Co.Ltd or other agency, for declaration that the sale deed dated 10.02.1994 and the decree dated 29.11.1988 in O.S.No.17 of 1988 passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Peddapally are null and void and for directing the first respondent/first defendant to pay an amount of Rs.93,304/- to the petitioners being the amount of compensation for the land to an extent of Ac.4.20 guntas acquired in S.No.640 together with future interest at the rate 6% per annum. Originally the suit was numbered as O.S.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Peddapally and it was coming up for trial after the issues were framed. The Subordinate Judge, Peddapally posted the suit for evidence of the plaintiffs from time to time till 31.01.2001. Subsequently, on 08.03.2001 the said suit was transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Manthini and it was numbered as O.S.No.4 of 2001 on its file. After affording several opportunities to the revision petitioners, the learned Subordinate Judge finally adjourned the suit to 25.06.2002 with a direction to the parties to produce evidence on 25.06.2002. Both the parties and their counsel were absent and consequently the suit was dismissed for default. 3. Thereafter the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.123 of 2002 to set aside the dismissal order and delay of 15 days was occurred in filing the said application. The learned Subordinate Judge after making enquiry into the said application dismissed the same, against which the present revision is preferred by the plaintiffs. 4. I have heard both the learned counsel on record. 5. It was contended that the ground on which the dismissal order sought to be set aside was that after the transfer of the suit, no notice was served on the revision petitioners/plaintiffs and only on 07.08.2002 after coming to know about the transfer of the suit, immediately rushed to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Manthini, made enquiries about the case and came to know that it was dismissed for default on 25.06.2002 and in the meanwhile, delay of 15 days occurred in filing the set aside petition. 6. The petition was opposed by the respondents/defendants by contending that the Senior Civil Judge’s Court was inaugurated by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh for which there was vide publicity, a list of transfer cases was displayed on the notice board of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapally and also of the Senior Civil Judge, Manthini. The petitioners being well aware of the transfer of the suit had set up a plea of lack of knowledge about the transfer on false grounds and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. The learned Court below specifically mentioned in its order that as per the suit docket when the matter is posted on 31.01.2001 the petitioner as well as the respondents were not ready and that the suit was adjourned to 04.04.2001 and in the meanwhile on 08.03.2001 the case was transferred to Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Manthini and also that the Senior Civil Judge directed the office to inform the parties and their counsel about the transfer of the case. In the order, it is further mentioned that when the suit was posted for trial on 04.04.2001, the petitioners must have approached the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapally and they might have come to know that the suit was transferred. The learned Court below further stated in its order that as per the docket proceedings on 17.04.2001 both parties reported not ready and the matter was adjourned to 28.06.2001 which fact clearly indicates knowledge of the petitioners about the transfer of the suit as well as the stage of the suit. 8. Here, the question to be considered is whether the interlocutory application filed by the revision petitioners to condone the delay and to set aside the dismissal order was true and genuine one and if the ground on which the delay was sought to be condoned is false, then the petition is liable to be dismissed notwithstanding the fact that the delay is only of 15 days. 9. From the order passed by the learned Court below, it is obvious that both the parties were present before the Court on 17.04.2001 and reported not ready and thereafter, the suit was adjourned to 28.06.2001 on which date it was dismissed for default. Therefore, the ground urged by the revision petitioners that they are not aware of the transfer of the suit and also the date of adjournment is apparently false and invented for the purpose of filing the application. In my view, the leaned trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and the said order does not require any interference in this revision. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ Date: 18.06.2010 R. KANTHA RAO, J Kvrm HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P. NO.1066 OF 2003 DATED: 18.06.2010