THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1186 OF 2011 01.07.2011 Between: Akula Shilpa …Petitioner AND Gonad Vijaya Kumari …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1186 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed suit being O.S.No.130 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, for declaration of title and possession of suit schedule property. On 20.02.2004, the suit was dismissed for default/non- prosecution. She then filed interlocutory application being I.A.No.892 of 2004 under Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to set aside the order. The same was allowed by the trial Court on condition that the petitioner should produce their evidence on 24.3.2008. On that day, the petitioner did not comply with the Court order. Therefore, the matter was again adjourned to 22.4.2008. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.892 of 2004, the petitioner filed appeal being C.M.A.No.13 of 2008. By impugned order, dated 25.11.2010, the learned VI Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry dismissed the same observing that the petitioner is guilty of delay and negligence. In this civil revision petition filed against the order of the learned District Judge, the counsel for petitioner vehemently contends that the respondent filed another suit which was also dismissed for default but the same was restored. If the petitioner’s suit is not restored, she would suffer irreparable loss and injury. This Court has perused copy of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the I.A.No.892 of 2004. There are no valid reasons prompting to set aside the default order. Even then the trial Court has shown lot of indulgence and called upon the petitioner to produce evidence duly setting aside the order dismissing the suit for default. On the day posted or thereafter, the petitioner did not evince any interest to produce evidence and mere fact that she is resident of Visakhapatnam and she is fighting her case in Rajahmundry is not mitigating enough to warrant the exercise of power in her favour. This Court does not find any valid reason to disagree with the impugned order of the learned District Judge. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 01.07.2011 Pln