IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.315 OF 2011 Between: Maddi Laxmi Srinivas ..... APPELLANT AND M. Rama Devi ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.315 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.299 of 2005 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, against his sister, the respondent herein, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The suit was dismissed for default on 21.08.2007. The petitioner filed I.A.No.461 of 2007, under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, with a prayer to restore the suit. The respondent opposed the application. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 19.02.2009. Hence, this appeal. 2. Sri K. Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the suit was allotted to as many as three Courts, ever since it was instituted, and on account of the frequent change of Courts, the learned counsel for the appellant in the trial Court was not able to keep proper track of the record. He submits that though formally the suit was allotted to IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, it came to be dismissed for default by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, who was in-charge of that Court. He submits that his client deserves to be given an opportunity to pursue the matter. 3. Ms. M. Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that soon after receiving notice in the suit, her client filed written statement and though issues were framed way back on 13.03.2006, the appellant did not evince any interest to adduce evidence. She submits that her client is an old woman and that the suit is filed in a speculative manner. 4. The suit filed in the year 2005 was dismissed for default in 2007. Though the suit remained in the Courts at same place, the record discloses that it was transferred to as many as three Courts, may be in the course of distribution of work. Naturally, this would result in some difficulty for the advocates and the parties to keep proper track of the proceedings. The suit was dismissed for default by a Court, which was in-charge of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada. The application, under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, was dealt with by the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada. 5. The docket proceedings, no doubt, disclose that the appellant was not ready, ever since issues were framed. It has already been mentioned that the suit was transferred from one Court to another and even after such transfer, the incumbent for the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge Court was not there. In such a fluid situation, it would be difficult to expect a steady progress in the suit. It is felt that the appellant deserves to be given an opportunity subject to certain terms. 6. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order under revision is set aside, on condition that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) to the respondent, within a period of four weeks from today. On such payment, the order, dated 21.08.2007, shall stand set aside and the suit shall be restored to file. Since it is stated that the respondent is an old woman, the trial Court shall commence the trial forthwith on restoration and dispose of the matter as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of commencement of the trial. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J July 18, 2011 MD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.315 OF 2011 July 18, 2011