HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P.No.3179 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar in C.M.A.No.6 of 2009 dated 31.05.2010, whereby the learned Judge while allowing the said appeal, remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to restore I.A.No.397 of 2007 in O.S.No.328 of 2005 to its original file and dispose of the same by giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to file better affidavit. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed O.S.No.328 of 2005 before the Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, against the petitioner-defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner-defendant contested the said suit by filing a written statement. In the said suit, chief-examination affidavit of the plaintiff was filed and the case was posted for cross-examination of the plaintiff on 24.09.2007 and since the plaintiff was not present on that day the case was adjourned to 24.10.2007 on payment of costs. Since the plaintiff did not pay the costs and did not appear when the suit was called, the trial Court dismissed the suit for default on 24.10.2007. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.397 of 2007 for restoration of the suit by setting aside the dismissal order dated 24.10.2007. However, the trial Court, on a consideration of the entire material available on record, dismissed the said application holding that there is no sufficient cause to restore the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred C.M.A.No.6 of 2009 before the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. However, the learned Judge, while allowing the said appeal, remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to restore I.A.No.397 of 2007 in O.S.No.328 of 2005 to its original file and dispose of the same, on merits, by giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to file better affidavit. Questioning the said order, the present revision is filed by the defendant. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant. While ordering Notice Before Admission, this Court, on 30.07.2010, directed the learned Counsel for the petitioner to take out personal notice to the respondent-plaintiff and file proof of service. On 03.09.2010 when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner filed proof of service establishing the fact that the respondent- plaintiff was served with notice on 11.08.2010. Despite service of notice, the respondent-plaintiff has not chosen to put in his appearance either in person or through an advocate. Apparently, the suit was filed for recovery of money as early as in the year 2005. Initially the suit was dismissed for default on 24.10.2007 and thereafter the application filed by the plaintiff for setting aside the said dismissal order, was also dismissed on 30.07.2008 holding that no sufficient cause was made out for non-appearance of the plaintiff, on 24.10.2007, before the trial Court. Even in the judgment of the appellate Court, it was observed by the learned Judge that in spite of granting sufficient time, neither the plaintiff nor his counsel was present before the Court to advance arguments. In this revision also, despite service of notice, the respondent-plaintiff has not chosen to put in his appearance either in person or through an advocate. Therefore, it has to be necessarily held that the respondent-plaintiff is not diligent in prosecuting the suit. Hence, this Court feels that the lower appellate Court ought not to have allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned judgment passed in C.M.A.No.6 of 2009 dated 31.05.2010 is hereby set aside. No costs. ______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 29-10-2010 Gsn.