THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD C.M.A.NO.1566 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This appeal is filed against the order dated 10.1.2003 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally, dismissing I.A.No.104 of 2001 in O.S.No.34 of 1996 filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC seeking to set aside the order of dismissal for default, dated 21.3.2001 and to restore the suit to file. The appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties into five equal shares and to allot one such share to him and 1/5th share in the sale of cashewnut. When the suit was coming for trial, as there was no representation on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff on 21.3.2011, the Court below passed the following order: “Plaintiff called absent. There is no representation even though the conditional order is passed by directing the plaintiff to get ready and it appears that the plaintiff is not interested to produce evidence in his case by reporting ready in this case. Even though the petitions are pending the Court considers that the plaintiff is not interested to conduct their case. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to grant adjournment. Hence, the suit is dismissed for default without costs.” On that, the appellant-plaintiff filed the present application seeking to set aside the above order and to restore the suit to file. The reason assigned by the appellant-plaintiff is that his wife was suffering from arthritis and no body was in the house to look after her and as such, he could not attend the Court on 21.3.2001. The Court below having observed that the plaintiff did not file any document in support of his case that his wife was suffering from arthritis and according to his own version, he had major sons and therefore, the reason assigned by him is not convincing, dismissed the impugned application. Hence, the present appeal. Heard both the Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that when a party approaches the Court seeking adjudication on any issue, he must be diligent in pursuing the matter. The material on record goes to show that the suit is of the year 1996 and the appellant-plaintiff was not diligent either at the stage of the suit or this appeal. Further, the order under appeal makes it clear that the appellant-plaintiff did not produce any document in support of his case that he could not appear before the Court below on 21.3.2001 as his wife was suffering from arthritis. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the order under appeal does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ Justice N.V. Ramana DATE: 28.9.2011 ____________________ Justice P. Durga Prasad nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD C.M.A.No.1566 of 2003 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 28.9.2011 Nn