THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1025 of 1997 JUDGMENT: The appellant figured as 2nd defendant in O.S.No.21 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, filed by respondents 1 to 7 herein. The 8th respondent is the 1st defendant. It was filed for the relief of recovery of damages, for use and occupation of Ac.1.44 cents of land in survey No.38/4 of Satyavaram Village, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. The suit was decreed ex parte, on 31.10.1995. The appellant filed I.A.No.647 of 1995 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree. The 8th respondent has filed I.A.No.646 of 1995, for similar relief. Through common order, dated 27.06.1996, the trial Court dismissed the applications. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order in I.A.No.647 of 1995. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. O.S.No.21 of 1985 was being tried along with O.S.No.43 of 1988, in which the appellant figured as plaintiff, along with the 8th respondent. On 31.10.1995, an application under Order XVII Rule 1 C.P.C. was filed by the appellant for adjournment. The trial Court rejected the application and proceeded to decree the suit ex parte. The appellant states that the trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to him, after refusing the request for adjournment. It is no doubt true that the trial Court ought not to have proceeded to decide the suit, that too, ex parte on the same day, on which, the request for adjournment was rejected. The fact, however, remains that the two defendants in the suit i.e. the appellant and the 8th respondent filed separate applications under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. and both of them were dismissed on the same day. The cause of action against the appellant and the 8th respondent is said to be common. The order of dismissal in I.A.No.646 of 1995 has become final. Since the cause of action against the appellant and the 8th respondent is not divisible, the dismissal of the suit would operate against the 8th respondent as well as the appellant. No useful purpose would be served, in case the I.A. filed by the appellant is allowed. At any rate, this Court is not satisfied with the manner, in which the appellant was pursuing the proceedings. Ten years have elapsed from the date of filing of the suit, by the time it came to be decreed. The trial Court was obviously under pressure for disposal of the suit, since it was an identified case. Hence, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:22.07.2010 GJ