THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.Nos.3338, 3347, 3171 and 4406 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: All the C.M.As. are interconnected. Hence, they are disposed of by this common order. The appellant filed O.S.No.19 of 1986 in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property, against the respondents. It was, however, dismissed for default, on 18.07.1991. He filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C., way back in the year 1991 itself. It was returned for want of service of notice. It was only in the year 1996, that he filed another application under that provision. Since there was delay of 1360 days, he filed I.A.No.306 of 1996 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. On 29.07.1997, when the I.A. was listed, the petitioner came to know that defendants 1 to 3 in the appeal, died. Therefore, he filed three applications, namely, I.A.Nos.542, 543 and 544 of 2001, for the reliefs of setting aside abatement; condonation of delay in filing the application to set aside the abatement and to bring the legal representatives of the deceased defendants, on record. All the pending applications were dismissed for default on 23.08.2009. Therefore, the appellant filed I.A.No.2505, 2506, 2507 and 2508 of 2001, with a prayer to set aside the orders dated 23.08.2001 passed in the respective applications. Through separate but similar orders, dated 07.06.2002, the trial Court dismissed the applications. Hence, these four appeals. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Though some of the contesting respondents were served with notice, they have not entered appearance. The suit was filed way back in the year 1986. On account of the lack of diligence on the part of the appellant, the suit was dismissed on 18.07.1991. Even thereafter, he did not exhibit the required amount of interest. Not only the applications filed for condonation of the delay of nearly 3½ years, but also the applications for setting aside the abatement etc., were dismissed for default. Nearly a quarter century had elapsed, ever since the suit was filed. The state of affairs cannot be expected to remain the same for such a long period. Further, the suit was not dismissed, on merits. If it is otherwise permissible in law for the appellant to pursue the remedies, he can do so. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:26.08.2010 GJ