IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.814 of 2002 BETWEEN Gandla Ravanamma. …APPELLANT AND Mr. P. Chiranjeevi Rao. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the appellant: Mr. V. Parabrahma Sastry Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar The Court made the following order: JUDGMENT: This appeal is at the instance of the defendant in O.S.No.30 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. In the said suit, the appellant herein was set ex parte and the application of appellant in I.A.No.87 of 2002 filed under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to set aside the ex parte decree dated 11.12.2001 was dismissed under the impugned order dated 07.03.2002. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said suit is linked with O.S.No.35 of 1995 between the same parties as well as another suit O.S.No.43 of 1991 re-numbered as O.S.No.49 of 1998. The affidavit of the appellant states that while she had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.317 of 2001 before this Court against judgment and decree under the said O.S.No.35 of 1995, the entire records of the three suits including the present suit were sent over to Hyderabad to the counsel appearing in the said appeal and the appellant was pursuing the said appeal for the purpose of obtaining stay. Therefore, she was not present before the Court below on 11.12.2001 and on the same day the appellant herein was set ex parte, P.W.1 was examined and the suit was decreed ex parte. The said application of the appellant was, however, rejected by the Court below on the ground that the appellant has not established sufficient cause. 4. It is evident that these three suits are between the same parties relating to portions of the same schedule property and the litigation in O.S.No.35 of 1995 had reached this Court in A.S.No.317 of 2001. It is, therefore, but natural that the appellant was pursuing the said appeal for the purpose of stay and records connected to the suits were said to be with the counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court. The absence of the appellant on 11.12.2001 was, therefore, clearly supported by sufficient cause. It is well settled that the Court must consider the explanation of sufficient cause in the light of the all attending circumstances and liberally construe the same so as to advance substantial cause of justice. The impugned order, to my mind, is too pedantic and an opportunity deserves to be given to the appellant. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and I.A.No.87 of 2002 in O.S.No.30 of 2000 shall stand allowed. The trial Court shall proceed with the suit after giving sufficient opportunities to both sides and decide the suit in accordance with law on merits. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 31, 2010 DSK