IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.1007 of 2005 Date: 6th August, 2010 Between: Parel Investment and Trading Company Ltd., (Custodian: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) Administrative Office at Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Attorney S.Banerji. .. Petitioner And Padma Agencies, a Partnership firm, represented by its Partner Smt.Grandhi Surya Kumari and others. .. Respondents ORAL JUDGMENT: Though it appears, it is an unfortunate case, appellant deserves the treatment meted out to it. The C.M.A. is preferred questioning the order and decree made in I.A.No.758 of 2000 in O.S.No.115 of 1992 dated 4.10.2004 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. was dismissed. Appellant is plaintiff and respondents are defendants. Appellant laid suit in O.S.No.115 of 1992 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for recovery of money on the basis of some commercial transaction between the parties. The said suit was dismissed for default on 30.8.2000. However, within 30 days, appellant filed application on 12.9.2000 under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. seeking to set aside the default order dated 30.8.2000. The said application was dragged upto 4.10.2004 and on which date the I.A. was dismissed. Questioning the said order, the present C.M.A. is preferred. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice the findings recorded by the Court below in the impugned order, which reads as under: “It is clear from the suit docket order dated 19.4.2000, this suit was posted for trial to 28.4.2000, but the plaintiff was not ready hence it was posted to 9.6.2000 for trial and the plaintiff was not ready, hence with a direction of no further time posted to 16.6.2000 and on that day defendant was ready, but the plaintiff was not ready, hence the suit was posted on costs of Rs.50/- to 23.6.2000, but again the plaintiff was not ready, hence the Court posted the suit to 30.6.2000 on further costs of Rs.100/-, but the plaintiff was called absent and thus plaintiff was not ready hence again the Court posted the matter to 7.7.2000 on costs of Rs.150/- and on condition of no further time, but again the plaintiff was not ready on 7.7.2000, and on the representation of counsel for plaintiff for settlement of the matter for trial posted to 18.7.2000, but on 18.7.2000 the plaintiff neither reported compromise nor ready for trial and again at request of plaintiff posted to 27.7.2000 for trial, but again the plaintiff was neither reported the compromise nor get ready and at request posted to 10.8.2000, but the plaintiff was not ready for trial on 10.8.2000, hence the matter again posted to 17.8.2000 on costs of Rs.50/-, but the plaintiff was not ready. On that day again the matter is posted to 24.8.2000, on costs of Rs.10/- and on condition of no further time, but the plaintiff was not ready without any reason. Again the matter is posted to 30.8.2000 on condition of no further adjournment, but on 30.8.2000 plaintiff was called absent and the plaintiff was not ready, and the adjournment sought for was refused and the suit was dismissed for default. It is manifestly clear from the above docket orders of the suit, that the petitioner/plaintiff had no intention to prosecute the suit and on the other hand the petitioner/plaintiff used to procrastinate the matter without any ostensible reason or sufficient cause. It is the bounden duty of the plaintiff having come to Court seeking the relief against the defendants, to prove the same and get the matter disposed of at an earliest point of time, but the plaintiff has miserably failed to do so for the reasons best known to him. More over it is obvious from the case record that the suit O.S.No.115 of 1992 was one of the oldest matters on the file of the Court for immediate disposal as per the circular orders of the Honourable High Court. But the plaintiff was always not ready nor appeared before the Court to conduct the trial of the matter, without any reason, though the Court has very liberally granted several adjournments on the mere oral asking of the time by the counsel for plaintiff. It is also clear from the above docket orders of the Court that the petitioner/plaintiff has not only wasted his time but also wasted the valuable time of the Court in getting the matter adjourned from time to time without sufficient reason or cause and without any progress in the trial of the matter. The petitioner having filed this petition on 12.9.2000 failed to get ready for hearing of this petition till 29.9.2004 on one pretext or other and finally it was heard on 29.9.2004 and it was further heard on 1.10.2004. The ever not ready nature of the plaintiff is also once again reflected in this petition and the procrastinating nature of the plaintiff in prolonging the matter. The documents filed by the petitioner/plaintiff with memo on 17.8.2004, not in any way relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition and also those documents are not at all a ground for the petitioner/plaintiff to not to commence the trial ever since 28.4.2000 to 30.8.2000 and hence those documents are not relevant. Having regard to the above facts, circumstances and observations, I hold that there are no bonafides in the plea of affidavit of petitioner and also there are no merits in the petition, therefore, this petition is dismissed with costs”. From the above, it is clear that this is a case where the appellant/plaintiff tested the patience of the Court only to express anger and anguish while dismissing the I.A. At one stage, appellant/plaintiff reported that the matter would be compromised and had taken adjournments and at another stage, there was no representation on its behalf. Though the Court below granted several adjournments, plaintiff was never ready to go ahead with the matter. This is a rarest of rare case. It does not inspire the confidence of the Court to allow the appeal, which is filed against the order made in I.A. filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC. Even otherwise, now it is more than 18 years since the suit is filed. I am of the opinion that it is the making of the appellant-plaintiff itself and cannot blame anybody including the Court or respondents. The C.M.A. is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 6.8.2010 DA