HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.M.P.No.25342 OF 1998 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3221 OF 1998 DATE:26-11-2010 BETWEEN Smt. Papolu Venkata Naga Satyavani …Petitioner AND Ch.Narayana Rao & others …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.M.P.No.25342 OF 1998 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3221 OF 1998 ORDER: Petitioner filed C.M.P.No.25342 of 1998 to restore C.R.P.No.3221 of 1998 by setting aside the order, dated 26.11.1998 dismissing the revision for default. The revision is filed by the petitioner, who is the plaintiff to revise the orders of Subordinate Judge, Avanigadda in dismissing C.M.A.No.2 of 1997, dated 29.8.1997 and confirming the orders of the District Munsif Judge, Avanigadda in I.A.No.876 of 1995 in O.S.No.99 of 1988, dated 20.6.1996 whereby the I.A. filed by the petitioner-plaintiff to set aside the default order passed in the suit, dated 10.7.1995 was dismissed. Petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit in the year 1988 for declaration in respect of Ac.0.50 cents of land against her own family members and when the suit came up for evidence, as evident from the orders of the trial Court, it was adjourned from 29.3.1994 to 31.3.1994 on payment of costs; that on 31.3.1993 P.W.1 was examined in chief and the matter was posted to 12.4.1994 for continuation; that on 12.4.1994 as P.W.1 was not ready, the suit was adjourned with costs to 25.4.1994; that from there, the matter underwent adjournments from time to time at the request of the plaintiff. Ultimately, on 10.7.1995 as the plaintiff was absent, the suit was dismissed for default. For restoration of the suit, I.A.No.876 of 1995 was filed on 17.7.1995. The respondents-defendants contested the application stating that after examination of P.W.1 in chief on 13.3.1994, the matter underwent 123 adjournments and on all the dates, the plaintiff failed to attend the Court, and therefore, she is not entitled to any indulgence. The trial Court after taking into consideration the method adopted by the petitioner-plaintiff to procrastinate the suit proceedings, did not accept the plea of the petitioner about her ill-health and accordingly dismissed the I.A. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the findings of the trial Court holding that the health ground pleaded by the petitioner is only an afterthought for the purpose of restoration of the suit, against which, the present revision is filed. Even in the revision, from 16.10.1998 onwards, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, and in spite of posting the matter under the caption ‘for dismissal’, as there was no representation, the revision was dismissed for non-prosecution on 26.11.1998. To restore the revision, the present C.M.P. is filed. Even in the restoration petition, there was no representation on 24.8.2001. In view of the same, reviving the suit claim at this stage will definitely cause harassment to the respondents- defendants for no fault of them. In the circumstances, C.M.P.No.25342 of 1998 is ordered and the revision is restored. This Court feels that the discretion exercised by the trial Court in dismissing the impugned I.A. and confirming the same by the lower appellate Court do not affect their jurisdiction and no illegality is discernable with the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. NOVEMBER 26, 2010 Tsr.