IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.939 OF 2011 Date:11.10.2011 Between:- N.Jamuna and another ..Appellants And B.Nagamani .. Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1(t) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) is directed against the order, dated 11.07.2011, in I.A.No.285 of 2011 in A.S.No.354 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Guntur whereunder and whereby, the application filed to condone the delay of 12 days in filing a petition under Order XLI, Rule 17 C.P.C. to restore A.S.No.354 of 2010, which was dismissed for default on 24.01.2011, was dismissed. 2. Originally, the respondent herein filed O.S.No.219 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur against the appellants herein for eviction directing the defendants to vacate the plaint schedule property and to deliver vacant possession of the same, and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.3,000/-, and also directing the defendants to pay damages of Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from 01.03.2009 till the actual delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for costs, and the same was decreed. Aggrieved thereby, defendants preferred A.S.No.354 of 2010 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Guntur and the same was dismissed for default on 24.01.2011. So, the defendants filed I.A.No.285 of 2011 to condone the delay of 12 days in filing a petition to restore the said appeal, but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants/defendants preferred the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides. 4. I.A.No.285 of 2011 was dismissed on the ground that the appellants/defendants failed to satisfy the Court that they have shown sufficient cause for filing an application under Order XLI Rule 17 C.P.C. The reason for absence of the counsel is that the date of hearing was noted wrongly as 24.02.2011 instead of 24.01.2011. Therefore, proper explanation was given. It is not a case where the appellants are not diligently prosecuting the appeal when it was pending before the first appellate Court. No negligence or inaction can be attributed to the appellants. Even if there are some laches on the part of the counsel, the same cannot be attributed to the appellants. For the mistake, if any, committed by the counsel, the party cannot be suffered. The appeal has to be disposed of in accordance with law. Therefore, as sufficient cause was shown by the appellants for condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the application, the same can be allowed. Hence, I.A.No.285 of 2011 filed by the appellants is allowed condoning the delay and the appeal is restored to file. 5. The trial Court decreed the suit directing the defendants to pay the arrears. That amount has to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. If not paid, the plaintiff is at liberty to execute the decree. 6. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 11th October, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.939 OF 2011 Date:11.10.2011 AMD