THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5007 of 2008 Date: 27.08.2010 Between: Chekuri Venkata Murali Satyanarayana Raju … Petitioner and Ankem Subba Rao … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5007 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 27.09.2007, in C.M.A.No.28 of 2005, passed by the I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order, dated 8.7.2003, in I.A.No.877 of 2002 in O.S.No.165 of 2001, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, dismissing the application filed to set aside the dismissed for default order, dated 4.9.2002, passed in the above suit and restore the suit to the file. 3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner filed the suit O.S.No.165 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, for recovery of a sum of Rs.48,200/- based on a promissory note executed by the respondent. After framing the issues, the suit was coming up for trial. On 3.9.2002, the petitioner was called absent and on payment of costs, the matter was adjourned to 4.9.2002, and on the said date the suit was dismissed for default since nether the costs were paid nor there was any representation for the petitioner. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner filed I.A.No.877 of 2002 under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C., seeking to set aside the order dismissing the suit for default. On 27.6.2003, inspite of several adjournments, since no counter was filed by the respondent, he was set exparte and the application was posted to 1.7.2003 for hearing the petitioner. On 1.7.2003, since there was no representation for the petitioner, the matter was posted to 8.7.2003 and on that date also, as there was no representation for the petitioner, the application was dismissed for default. 4. Against the dismissal of I.A.No.877 of 2002 for default, the petitioner appears to have invoked two parallel remedies; in the trial Court he filed I.A.No.778 of 2003 to restore I.A.No.877 of 2002, and in addition to that, with a delay of more than 117 days, he preferred the present C.M.A.No.28 of 2005. Subsequently, after several adjournments, by order dated 16.10.2003, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.778 of 2003. As against the said order, dated 16.10.2003, in I.A.No.778 of 2003, the petitioner preferred another C.M.A.No.15 of 2004. However, by order dated 24.1.2007, the said appeal was dismissed as not pressed on a Memo filed by the petitioner. 5. The net result is that the order, dated 16.10.2003, passed in I.A.No.778 of 2003 became final. The lower appellate Court observed that having invoked the jurisdiction of the trial Judge under Order 9 Rule 9 by filing I.A.No.778 of 2003, the petitioner is estopped from saying that the entire recourse adopted by him in filing the application should be ignored and the lower appellate Court should look into the merits of I.A.No.877 of 2003. The lower appellate Court also observed that the procedural law is handmade and it has to be suitably invoked for doing effective and proper justice to the parties, but not when the process of law is misused. Accordingly, the lower appellate Court dismissed the present C.M.A.No.28 of 2005. 6. Having regard to the said facts, particularly in view of the fact that the order passed under Order 9 Rule 9 passed by the trial Court had become final, further proceedings initiated, if any, cannot be sustained and the same would amount to deliberate attempt on the part of the plaintiff in multiplying or proliferating the litigation. From the beginning, it is obvious that the plaintiff has not been prosecuting the case with due diligence. Further more, he has been consistently trying to elongate the litigation by way of filing petitions and appeals one after the other. But, what is to be seen is, the eventual order passed by the trial Court in dismissing the suit for default had become final and no further investigation is required to be made by this Court. In fact, sufficient amount of exercise has been undertaken by the Courts below in different proceedings initiated by the petitioner-plaintiff and the conduct of the petitioner is totally unacceptable to this Court. 7. For the foregoing, I do not find any illegality or irrationality in the impugned order passed by the Court below and hence the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 27.08.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5007 of 2008 27.08.2010 (Msr)