IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.618 OF 2005 Between: Thotapalli Bhaskar Reddy ..... Appellant AND Nagella Bujjamma & another ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.618 OF 2005 ORDER: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 23.03.2005, in E.A.No.253 of 2004 in E.P.No.7 of 1997 in O.S.No.1024 of 1981, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder and whereby the petition under Order XXI, Rule 106 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the order of dismissal of E.A.No.496 of 2000 dated 28.06.2004 and to restore the same to file was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 2. The appellant filed the claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in E.A.No.496 of 2000 claiming the property brought for sale in the Execution Proceedings and that petition is dismissed on 28.06.2004 on the ground that the petitioner is not evincing any interest to proceed with the case. Admittedly, the claim petition was filed in the year 2000 and the petitioner never reported ready in the claim petition. Inspite of posting the matter ‘finally’ and as a ‘last chance’, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. So also, the petitioner did not attend the Court thereafter. The explanation given by the petitioner was that he was suffering from fever and hepatitis and taking treatment in Nellore Nursing Home, Nellore, from 20.06.2004 to 05.07.2004. It is not a case where he was admitted in the hospital and because of his admission in the hospital, he was unable to move from the bed so as to prosecute his case. No explanation is forthcoming as to why he was not prosecuting the petition when the trial Court has given several opportunities to the petitioner to let in evidence. Those opportunities have not been availed by the petitioner. So, as seen from the impugned order, it is clear that there is a sheer negligence on the part of the petitioner in prosecuting the case in his claim petition. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 3. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 13th September, 2010. KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.618 OF 2005 13th September, 2010. KL