THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.2126 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.101 of 2000 in the Court of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,74,050/-. On the ground that the batta was not paid, even after giving opportunity on two occasions, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 27.03.2001. The appellant filed I.A.No.1184 of 2001 under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the order, dated 27.03.2001. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 13.06.2001. Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the batta in fact was paid while filing the suit and when the Court directed payment of fresh batta, it was not paid within time on account of the fact that the learned counsel appearing in the trial Court has noted a wrong date. He contends that after the suit was dismissed for non- payment of batta, fresh batta was paid while filing I.A.No.1184 of 2001 and the trial Court did not take the same into account. Only respondent No.2 is served with notice in the appeal. This Court is of the view that the suit was dismissed on account of non-payment of batta and by that time, the respondents did not enter appearance. Since the suit is at the initial stage, no rights can be said to have accrued to the respondents. That the matter was dismissed on account of non-payment of batta as evident from the following observations made by the trial Court. “The affidavit filed in support of this petition shows as though the suit was dismissed for non-appearance of the plaintiff which is not at all correct. Primarily and essentially it was because of non- payment of the process for issuance of summons to the defendants by the plaintiff since 18.10.2000 in spite of directions by this Court on 18.10.2000 and 5.12.2000, the suit was dismissed on 27.03.2001.” This Court is of the view that in matters of this nature, it is not necessary to wait till the respondents are served, particularly when the matter of payment of batta is the one between the appellant and the Court itself. The trial Court did not take into account, the fact that the batta was paid when the I.A. was filed. If there is any deficiency in this regard, it can be rectified at this stage also. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order, dated 13.06.2001, is set aside. The suit is restored to file and the appellant shall take immediate steps to ensure that the respondents are served. If it suits the convenience of the Court, the trial Court may renumber the suit, so that the complications as to pendency may be avoided. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:23.07.2010 kdl