THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2414 of 2005 Date : 10-08-2009 Between : Hassan Ali & others .. Petitioners And Mohammed Yousuf .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2414 of 2005 ORDER: The deceased – first respondent filed O.S.No.4774 of 1996 in the Court of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioners. The petitioners contested the suit and the trial Court decreed the same. The petitioners filed A.S.No.212 of 2000 in the Court of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.4774 of 1996. The appeal was dismissed for default on 14-03- 2001. Thereupon, the petitioners filed I.A.No.522 of 2001 under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of the Civil Procedure. That I.A. was dismissed for default on 16-07-2002. The petitioners however noticed that at a later stage and filed an application to set aside the same. Since there was delay of 132 days in filling the application, they filed I.A.No.18 of 2003 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the same was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 23-10-2003. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioners met with several orders of dismissal for default. The first was in the appeal itself and thereafter it was in the I.A. that was filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of the Civil Procedure. The petitioner has placed before this Court, a certified copy of the docket order in I.A.No.522 of 2001. A perusal of the same discloses that the I.A. was called on 16-06-2002 and since there was no representation, it was posted to 16-12-2002. Naturally, the petitioners might have noticed of the same and they cannot be expected to attend the Court on any day; earlier to that. However, it was called on 16-07-2002 and was dismissed for default. It was not advanced on any application. These facts were very much pleaded before the lower appellate Court. However, the contention was not accepted on the ground that the extract of the ‘A’ Diary was not filed before it. Since the ‘A’ Diary is maintained by the Court itself, a simple verification there would have resolved the entire controversy. The delay on the part of the petitioners was neither wilful nor wanton. The appeal is of the year 2000. To avoid further complications in the matter, this Court is of the view that the appeal itself deserves to be restored, and the lower appellate Court be required to dispose of the same on merits by the end of December, 2009. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. As a consequence: (a) the delay shall stand condoned; (b) the application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of the Civil Procedure to set aside the order dated 16-07-2002 dismissing the I.A.No.522 of 2001 shall stand allowed; (c) I.A.No.522 of 2001 is allowed; and (d) A.S.No.212 of 2000 is restored to file. The lower appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal on merits by the end of December, 2009. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. 10th August, 2009. skmr