HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITON No. 784 of 2010 O R D E R: This CRP is directed against the order dated 3-12-2009 passed in CMA No. 8 of 2008 on the file of the Prl. District Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed Under Order 43 Rule -1 r/w Sec. 104 of CPC preferred against the order dated 16.03.2009 passed in I.A. No. 849 of 2008 in OS No. 19 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. 2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in OS No. 19 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. Initially, the suit was filed for injunction and subsequently, the plaintiff got the plaint amended seeking the relief of declaration of title. The subject matter of the suit relates the premises bearing No.6-3-177, situated at Ramagiri, Nalgonda District, admeasuring 675 sq.yards. and the said suit filed by the plaintiffs ended in dismissal on 28.08.2008. Thereupon the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 849 of 2008 in O.S. No.19 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, under O-9 R-9 r/w. 151 CPC. to set aside the dismissal order and to restore the suit to its file. 3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the petitioner No.1, who is attending to the litigation on behalf of himself and other petitioners, fell ill and thereby he could not proceed with the trial of the case scheduled on 28.08.2008 and consequently, the suit ended in dismissal for default. The respondents/defendants filed counter resisting the said application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, taking into consideration the past conduct of the petitioners/plaintiffs, proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs by order dated 16-03-2008. The petitioners/plaintiffs assailed the said order in IA No. 849 of 2008 by filing CMA No. 8 of 2008 on the file of the Prl. District Judge, Nalgonda. The learned Prl. District Judge, Nalgonda, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, did not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the trial court and thereby dismissed the C.M.A. by order dated 3-12-2009. Hence this revision. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. It is specifically pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the restoration application that the petitioner No.1 laid up with fever and therefore he could not attend before the trial court on the date of adjournment i.e, 28-08-2008. The said factual aspect has not been contradicted by the respondents in the counter. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners took me to the contents of the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 849 of 2008 in O.S. No. 19 of 2005 and also the counter filed by the respondents. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioners are not diligent in prosecuting their case and therefore they do not deserve any lenient view. 8. A further submission has been made by the respondent that the respondents failed to make out any valid grounds to set aside the dismissal order. Since the order of the trial court in dismissing the application has been confirmed by the appellate court, the order impugned in the revision does not warrant interference by this court exercising the powers conferred under Sec. 115 of CPC. 9. Indisputably, the suit is related to declaration of title in respect of the House bearing No. 6-3-177, situated at Ramagiri, Nalgonda District admeasuring 675 sq.yards. It is stated that valuable rights of the parties are involved in this case and the same are required to be decided by the trial court on merits. 10. The petitioners specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 849 of 2008 in OS No. 19 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda that the petitioner No.1 fell ill on the date of hearing i.e, 28-08-2008. This factual aspect has not been specifically denied by the respondents in the counter. 11. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the order dated 03-12-2009 passed in CMA No. 8 of 2008 on the file of the Prl. District Judge, Nalgonda be set aside and the suit be restored to file subject to the following conditions: i. That on payment of Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) towards costs to the respondents within a period of fifteen (15) days from today. The petitioners can either pay the costs directly to the respondents or deposit to the credit of the suit. In case the petitioners opt to deposit the costs to the credit of the suit, the respondents shall be permitted to withdraw the same. ii. That the petitioners /plaintiffs should complete entire evidence on their behalf in one sitting on suit being restored to its file. With the above observations, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. _____________ 26-04-2010 CC: by two days B/o Mjl/* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 784 of 2010 26-04-2010 Mjl/*