THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2612 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The appellants filed O.S.No.10 of 1986 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet, for the relief of declaration of title, in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala and it was re-numbered as O.S.No.47 of 1995. That Court dismissed the same for default, on 06.09.1999. The appellants filed I.A.No.1122 of 1999 under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C.. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 24.10.2000. Hence, this appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. The suit was filed more than two decades ago. For one reason or the other, there was no progress. Before it came to be dismissed for default, on 06.09.1999, it was dismissed more than once, be it, on account of non-payment of batta or for non-prosecution of the matter. The appellants pleaded that they could not reach the Court in time on account of delay in traveling. Had it been a case where, it was the first instance of their absence, indulgence could have been shown. The suit was nearly 15 years old by the time it came to be dismissed for default. Hardly any progress was taken place, by that time. The trial Court has taken into account the acts and omissions of the appellants herein and refused to restore the suit. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal. Further, this is not a suit for recovery of possession, in which case, the further remedy would have been barred. If the appellants are in possession of the suit schedule property, they can protect their rights by instituting separate proceedings. Therefore, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:26.08.2009. GJ