THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.2684 of 1998 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.100 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam. He filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. It was dismissed for default on 01.12.1997. Thereupon, the appellant filed I.A.No.123 of 1998, with a prayer to restore the suit. The application was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court rejected the I.A. Hence, this C.M.A. Heard Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. The plaint was presented by the appellant way back on 05.07.1989. Soon thereafter, summons were issued and on receipt thereof, the defendants filed the written statement. The trial Court was so prompt that it framed issues by 21.02.1991. Ever since then, the suit has undergone number of adjournments and sometimes by imposing costs also. Till the end of 1997, there was no progress and left with no alternative, the trial dismissed the suit for default. The reasons mentioned by the appellant for his failure to participate in the suit were hardly convincing. The trial Court referred to various events and developments that have taken place ever since the suit was filed, till it was dismissed for default. Though the suit became ripe for trial in the beginning of 1991, there was no progress till the end of 1997, in spite of repeated opportunities being given. Hardly any alternative is left for the Court except to dismiss the suit for default. The trial Court has assigned cogent reasons and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:27.10.2011 GJ