THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.983 of 2009 DATE:15.09.2009 Between: Gogineni Hari Prasad and another … Appellants And Aluri Kalpana and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.983 of 2009 ORDER: The appellants filed O.S.No.521 of 1985 in the court of the Principal Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, initially for the reliefs of specific performance of an agreement of sale and perpetual injunction. Subsequently, the relief of recovery of possession was prayed for. The suit was in respect of Ac.6.50 cents of land. The respondents denied execution of the agreement of sale. The trial court dismissed the suit, through its judgment, dated 09.09.1992. Thereupon, the appellants filed A.S.No.94 of 1992 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali. The appeal was dismissed for default on 10.08.1998. The appellants filed I.A.No.1125 of 1998 in A.S.No.94 of 1992 under Order 41 Rule 17 and 19 CPC with a prayer to restore the appeal. The lower appellate court dismissed the application, through its order, dated 25.06.2001. Hence, this civil miscellaneous appeal. Heard Sri B.V.S. Sivarama Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants. None appeared for the respondents. The appeal was presented, way back in the year 1992, and it was dismissed for default ultimately on 10.08.1998. In the affidavit filed by one of the appellants in support of I.A.No.1125 of 1998 in A.S.No.94 of 1992, the only reason pleaded by them is that they could not make their advocate in the lower appellate court, to argue the matter, on that particular day. The appellants were not supposed to attend the court on every date of hearing in the appeal. It is not as if the appeal was dismissed within days after it was filed. It was pending for six years before it came to be dismissed. The lower appellate court observed that the advocate for the appellants was not at all forthcoming to argue the appeal. Out of curiosity, this Court has also perused the judgment of the trial court. After detailed discussion, the trial court held that one of the parties to the agreement of sale has been a minor. The discrepancy as to prices of the land was also mentioned. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellants do not deserve any indulgence. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 15th September, 2009 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.983 of 2009 15th September, 2009 CBS