HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.27579 of 2010 Date : 6-4-2011 Between: Sri Barigela Mallaiah .. Petitioner And The Chairman, A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Sreedhar Singh for Sri R.Vijayanandan Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : A.G.P. for Endowments Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7 : Sri M.Vidyasagar The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a certiorari to quash order dated 15-9-2010 in I.A.No.22/2007 in O.A.No.4/2004, on the file of A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”). I have heard Sri Sreedhar Singh, learned counsel representing Sri B.Vijayanandan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 filed O.A.No.4/2004 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, who at that time had jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 87 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, for declaration that they are service holders and members of the founder family of Sri Ranganayaka Swamy temple, Mogilgidda village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The writ petitioner is respondent No.1 in the said O.A., who is evidently in possession of the lands which are the subject matter of the O.A. The said O.A. was coming up for evidence of respondent Nos.4 to 7. As they were not present, when the case was called, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the O.A. itself vide his docket order dated 23-6-2007. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 have filed I.A.No.22/2007 before the Deputy Commissioner which was later transferred to the file of the Tribunal. The petitioner has filed a counter affidavit contesting the case. The Tribunal, after hearing both the sides, allowed the application and restored the O.A. subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/- by respondent Nos.4 to 7 to the writ petitioner. This order is questioned in this Writ Petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.4 to 7 failed to assign any reasons whatsoever for their absence when the case was called and that therefore the Deputy Commissioner was justified in dismissing the O.A. Indeed, it is true that in the affidavit filed in support of the application for restoration, respondent Nos.4 to 7 have not furnished any explanation for their absence. However, even assuming that the said respondents were not diligent in prosecuting their case, the Deputy Commissioner was not legally correct in dismissing the O.A. itself as the case was coming up for their evidence. At the worst, he ought to have forfeited the right of the said respondents to adduce evidence. The Tribunal has considered these aspects and restored the O.A. subject to respondent Nos.4 to 7 paying costs of Rs.2000/- to the petitioner. This court is in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Tribunal that every endeavour shall be made to decide the cases on merits in stead of allowing them to go on default. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, by restoration of the O.A., no substantial prejudice is caused to the writ petitioner. The Tribunal will be required to adjudicate upon the dispute on merits after giving opportunity to both the parties. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error of law or jurisdiction in the order passed by the Tribunal for being interfered with in this Writ Petition. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 9-11-2010 stands vacated and WPMP No.35211/2010 and WVMP No.5791/2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 6-4-2011 AM