THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1604 OF 2000 Dated 13th August, 2009 Between: Allahabad Bank …Appellant And Ravi Venkateswara Rao and aothers …Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri B.Damodar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: None appeared The Court made the following JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.260 of 1984 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nuzivid against the respondents for foreclosure of mortgage. Respondents 1 to 3 borrowed some amount and mortgaged their properties with the appellant. Respondents 4 to 6 stood as guarantors. Since the borrowed amount was not repaid, the suit was filed. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree on 12.09.1991, thereafter the appellant filed I.A.No.813 of 1994 for final decree. That I.A was dismissed for default on 02.03.1995. Appellant filed I.A. No.284 of 1995 under Order IX Rule 9 CPC with a prayer to restore I.A.No.813 of 1994. It was pleaded that the advocate engaged before the trial Court by the appellant herein was murdered on 02.01.1995, and even before any steps could be taken, I.A.No.813 of 1994 was dismissed. The trial Court was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellant and dismissed I.A.No.284 of 1995, through its order dated 08.07.1997. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. Heard Sri B.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. Though respondents 1 to 3 and 5 are served, they have not chosen to enter appearance. After the preliminary decree dated 12.09.1991 in O.S. No.260 of 1984 became final, the appellant initiated steps for final decree, by filing I.A.No.813 of 1994. It was dismissed for default on 02.03.1995. The appellant categorically stated that the default occurred on account of the fact that the advocate engaged by them was murdered on 02.01.1995. In I.A.No.284 of 1995, the trial Court made certain observations, which do not appear to be proper and correct. It is not in dispute that the advocate engaged by the appellant was no more. The trial Court took the view that other panel advocates could have appeared. It did not visualize the fact the appellant is a Nationalised Bank and necessary steps have to be taken at various levels, taking into account, the various developments. The trial Court has also observed that the application was filed on the last day of limitation. Even this is an irrelevant and improper observation. This Court is of the view that the appellant was prevented on account of reasons beyond its control when the I.A. was dismissed for default. The respondents, in turn, need to be protected from being laid any interest for the period during which proceedings stood dismissed. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and order in I.A.No.284 of 1995 is set aside. Consequently, the I.A shall stand allowed and I.A.No.813 of 1994 is restored to file, on condition that the interest on the decretal amount shall not be levied from 02.03.1995 until any further orders that may be passed by the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated 13th August, 2009 vrn