IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCALLENEOUS APPEAL NO.1207 OF 1993 DATED:22.07.2010 Between: Smt. Talla Leela Premanandam … Appellant And A. Atchanna Panthulu (died) Rep. by legal representatives and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1207 OF 1993 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No.305 of 1984 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam. She filed the suit against the respondents for relief of declaration of title in respect of ‘A’ schedule property and recovery of vacant site after evicting respondents/defendants 3 and 4 or in the alternative to rectify the sale deed dt.15.7.1992 after localizing the schedule property. The suit was dismissed for default on 19.10.1992. The appellant filed I.A. No.828 of 1992 under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with a prayer to set aside the order dt.19.10.1992. The trial Court dismissed the same by order dt.30.4.1993. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The suit was filed way back in the year 1984. It was dismissed for default on 15.6.1990. On an application filed by the appellant, it was restored on 21.9.1992. Instead of proceeding with the trial of the matter, the appellant went on either seeking adjournments or remaining absent on the dates when the suit was posted. On 12.10.2002 an application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC with a prayer to implead third party. The trial Court took exception to the I.A. and expressed its dissatisfaction since the suit was pending for eight years by that time. The I.A. was dismissed, and the suit was posted to 19.10.1992 subject to payment of costs of Rs.50/-. Neither the amount of costs was paid nor there was any representation on 19.10.1992. For all practical purposes, the appellant left no alternative before the trial Court except to dismiss the suit. As observed earlier, the suit was dismissed for default on one occasion and even after it was restored, the required amount of costs was not paid. Substantial change as to the parties has already taken place. Defendants 1 and 3 died and for the past more than thirty-five years substantial changes have taken place even as regards the enjoyment of the property. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 22.07.2010 bnr