IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.MA. No.35 of 2006 Date:13.04.2011 Between: Alugubilli Chandramouli .....Appellant AND Kotni Narasingarao ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.MA. No.35 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal directed against order dated 01.07.2005 made in I.A.No.28 of 2005 in O.S.No.35 of 2004 by the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the Interlocutory Application for the convenience sake from hereinafter words. The suit was filed for recovery of amount said to be due under a pronte for Rs.4,47,586/-. The suit was dismissed on 27.01.2005 for default on the ground that the petitioner failed to take necessary measures for proceeding with the trial of the suit. Then the petitioner filed IA No.28 of 2005 to set aside the default order and to restore the suit stating that he could not attend the court on that day as he fell sick. In support of his contention, he filed a medical certificate in order to establish that he could not attend the court on 27.01.2005 as he fell sick. But the court below dismissed the application on the ground that concerned medical officer who according to the petitioner issued the medical certificate was not examined to prove the genuineness of the medical certificate and as per the suit docket order, the suit was posted from 18.01.2005 to 27.01.2005 for the cross-examination of P.W.1 and on 18.01.2005 the advocate for the defendant insisted for corroboration and then, on 27.1.2005, neither P.W.1 nor his counsel represented the matter. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. It is important that the petitioner filed the medical certificate about his absence on 27.01.2005 before the court besides giving specific reasons for his failure to attend the court on the said date. Further, the record does not show that he involved in prolonging the matter before the court below. Further, it is significant that the petitioner filed the suit for recovery of the amount due under the pronote. Therefore for the reasons discussed above, I do not find any grounds to reject the contentions of the petitioner. The court below has failed to appreciate the matter properly. However, the petitioner should have acted diligently to make necessary representations before the court below when he was represented through his counsel. Hence, the order passed by the court below, is liable to be dismissed subject to imposition of penality. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Rajam within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J. 13th April, 2011 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.MA. No.35 of 2006 Date:13.04.2011 Gk.