HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.988 OF 2006 Dated 1-3-2011 Between: Dikkala Jagannada Das and another. …Appellants. And: Priya Apparao and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.988 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This C.M.A. is directed against order dated 21-8-2006 passed in I.A.No.50 of 2003 in O.S.No.5 of 1997 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompet. 2. The appellants are the petitioners and the respondents are the respondents in the interlocutory application and for the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the interlocutory application. 3. The Petitioners filed the interlocutory application seeking to set aside default order dated 9-1-2003 passed against the petitioners in the suit on the ground that the 1st petitioner used to look after the suit and the suit was posted to 9- 1-2003 on which date, he could not attend the Court and also could not give instructions to his advocate as he fell sick and was bed ridden and therefore, he was called absent and the suit was dismissed for default and there were no intentional lapses on his part and they got good case to succeed in the matter. 4. Further on behalf of the 2nd respondent, counter was filed denying the pleas taken by the petitioners and further on 8-1-2003, the Court below waited up to evening and then posted the matter to 9-1-2003 and as there was no representation on that date, the Court below dismissed the suit. 5. While dismissing the suit, the Court below observed that even supposing that the first petitioner was sick, the 2nd petitioner could have taken necessary measures on that day but he failed and there were latches on the part of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 6. Therefore, the point for determination is whether sufficient grounds are shown in order to set aside the order of the Court below?. 7. It is pertinent to note here that in spite of service of notices on the respondents in this matter, none of them made appearance before this Court. Further, the lower Court dismissed the application without elaborately discussing the reasons given by the petitioners to set aside the default order made in the suit. It is pertinent to note here that the record shows that the first petitioner used to take care of the matter but because he fell sick, he could not attend the Court on 9-1-2003 and for the same reason, he also could not contact his advocate and therefore, he was called absent and the suit was dismissed for default. It seems no Medical Certificate was filed before the Court below to that effect. But there is no basis to say that the petitioners used to involve in prolonging the litigation. It is also pertinent to note that the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and also for further reliefs. Therefore, it is difficult to say that they got no interest in taking care of the matter. Even though, no medical certificate was filed, I do not find any reason to reject the claim of the petitioners. Further, in any case, the petitioners should have been diligent enough to prosecute the matter in spite of such contingency. 8. In the circumstances enumerated, it is reasonable to allow the application subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Sompet within one month of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 9. Since the matter has become old, the Court below is directed to take steps to dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, this C.M.A. is allowed. No costs. ___________________________________ Justice G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated 1-3-2011. Note: CC in one week. BO. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.988 OF 2006 Dated 1-3-2011