IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.426 OF 2010 Between: Dasari Bapanaiah ..... Appellant AND Dasari Chitti Babu & 4 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.426 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order 43 Rule 1 (C) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order, dated 20.01.2010, in I.A.No.92 of 2010 in O.S.No.78 of 2006, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Guntur, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed by the appellant/petitioner to adjourn the suit for two more months was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner. Inspite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent. 3. O.S.No.78 of 2006 was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, and followers from, in any way, interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The suit was posted for trial on 27.10.2009. On 27.10.2009, the appellant herein filed I.A.No.1481 of 2009, under Order 17 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for grant of 15 days time for engaging another Advocate to pursue the matter. The trial Court dismissed that petition and consequently dismissed the suit also for non- prosecution on the same day. The appellant/petitioner further filed I.A.No.1633 of 2009 for restoration of the suit by setting aside the order, dated 27.10.2009. That petition was allowed by the trial Court on 16.12.2009 by imposing a condition that the appellant/petitioner should be present along with entire evidence on his behalf by 20.01.2010, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant/petitioner filed I.A.No.92 of 2010 to adjourn the suit for two more months. That petition was dismissed as the conditional order, dated 16.12.2009, was not complied with. Consequently, I.A.No.1633 of 2009 for restoration of the suit was also dismissed as the conditional order was not complied with. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner stated that the appellant was aged about 86 years. He was suffering with ailments like heart attack, urinal infection, knee pains, etc., and therefore, he could not attend the Court on 20.01.2010. He filed a petition in the trial Court under Order 17 Rule 1 to grant adjournment together with the medical certificate. That petition was dismissed in view of the fact that the conditional order, dated 16.12.2009, was not complied with. In view of the fact that the petitioner is severely ill and the petition supported by the medical evidence is filed on the day of his absence, the request to adjournment should have been accepted by the trial Court. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, an opportunity could be given to the petitioner to let in evidence. The trial Court is directed to restore the suit on its original file and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that both the parties shall cooperate with the trial of the suit. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 22nd September, 2010. KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.426 OF 2010 22nd September, 2010. KL