HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Civil Revision Petition No.651 of 2004 Date: 18-11-2011 Between Kotnani Srihari Rao and another … Petitioners/Petitioners/ Plaintiffs and Chukka Suri Appa Rao (Died) and 5 others … Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Civil Revision Petition No.651 of 2004 Order: The civil revision petition is ﬁled against the order and decree, dated 29-12-2003, in I.A.No.136 of 2003 in O.S.No.231 of 1997 on the ﬁle of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari district. 2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiﬀs- petitioners in I.A.No.136 of 2003. They ﬁled the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 139 days in ﬁling the petition to set aside the default order dated 28-8-2002. The learned Junior Civil Judge on completion of enquiry dismissed the said petition on the ground that the petitioners failed to establish the delay in ﬁling the petition. Being aggrieved, the present revision is filed. 3. Sri T.G.S.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiﬀs, mainly urged that the reasons given by the trial Court are not correct and the trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioners-plaintiffs to adduce evidence. 4. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the trial Court is sustainable and that the petitioners-plaintiﬀs discharged their burden in proving that there are bona fides in ﬁling the petition to condone the delay ? 5 . Point:- As seen from the impugned order, the suit was ﬁled by the petitioners-plaintiﬀs for recovery of money against the respondents-defendants. During the pendency of trial, the 1st defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as the defendants 2 to 6. 6. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiﬀs before the trial Court that originally Sri A.Subba Rao, Advocate, was looking after the matter and he did not inform them the date of hearing and thereby, they could not adduce evidence. 7. The learned trial Judge has observed in the impugned order that the 1st petitioner was examined as P.W.1 on 18-6-2002 and thereafter, the matter underwent nearly 9 adjournments and ﬁnally the suit was dismissed for default on 28-8-2002 after exhausting all remedies. 8. The facts in the case clearly read that P.W.1 was examined in chief on 18-6-2002. When a matter is taken as part-heard, normally the Court will grant adjournments to the nearer dates, therefore it is the duty of the party to verify the date of hearing to proceed with the trial. In this case, though P.W.1 was examined in chief, he could not proceed with the matter. Nowhere in the Aﬃdavit it was stated that he contacted his Advocate to know the proceedings in the matter. As rightly observed by the trial Court, it is the duty of the party to know the hearing date to prosecute his case. The silence and conduct on the part of the plaintiﬀs in all these 9 adjournments as to what had happened in the matter is self-explanatory and that they are not diligent to prosecute their case. The suit is of the year 1997 and the same was dismissed for default on 28-8-2002. Therefore, viewed from any angle, I see no ground to differ with the finding of the trial Court. 9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed, confirming the impugned order. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 18th November, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Civil Revision Petition No.651 of 2004 18th November, 2011. (Ak)