IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI * * * CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1 6 0 0 OF 2006. Between: M/s. Sreenilaya Chit Funds (P) Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. … Revision Petitioners V/s. Suresh Yadav & 4-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Revision Petitioners : Sri G.Dhananjai Counsel for the Respondents : None appeared THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1 6 0 0 OF 2006. O R D E R : Aggrieved by the order dated 29-8-2005 passed in I.A.No. 840 of 2004 in OS.No. 1874 of 1998 by the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff under section 5 of Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 923 days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the Managing Director of the plaintiff Chit Fund business and the suit has been filed for recovery of amount from Defendants 1 to 5. The main suit was dismissed during Dussera vacation and since then the record was misplaced, the plaintiff could not apply before the court due to shifting of office, record was misplaced, as such the petitioner prayed the court to condone the delay of 923 days in filing the application under Order-9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. On the other hand, the respondents 1 to 5 filed their detailed counters and the contention of Respondent No.1, Respsondent No.5 are that there is no sufficient cause shown by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and moreover the delay was not properly explained and the respondents therefore prayed the court to dismiss the application. 4. On the basis of rival contentions of the parties, the trial court framed the point for consideration is whether the delay of 923 days has to be condoned in filing Order-9, Rule-9 of CPC application ? 5. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner-plaintiff never represented the court that the suit bundle was misplaced in the office and the same was recently traced out and that no attempts were made atleast to obtain copy applications of plaint, written statement and other documents. Hence, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application holding that there is negligence on the part of the plaintiff. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and perused the record. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned in this revision. The petitioner is not diligent enough in prosecuting the case and the learned trial Judge has rightly observed that there is negligence on the part of the petitioner-plaintiff and if really the suit bundle is misplaced the petitioner-plaintiff ought to have made a mention before the trial court nor the docket proceedings do show that any such representation was made. Hence, I express disinclination to consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial court to dispose of the main suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. 22-03-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1 6 0 0 OF 2006 Circulation Entry No. 100 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L Date: 22-03-2010