IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THIS THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3476 OF 1999 Between: State Bank of India, Rep. By Branch Manager. …. appellant AND Md. Riazuddin S/o. Meera Mohinuddin and another …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3476 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S. No.300 of 1988 in the Court of the II Senior Civil Judge, Warangal against the respondents for recovery of amount. The first respondent is said to have borrowed the amount and the second respondent stood as guarantor for payment thereof. The first respondent remained ex parte. The suit is being contested by the second respondent. The trial of the suit has commenced and PW-1 filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The trial Court dismissed the suit for default on 09-06-1998. Appellant filed I.A. No.330 of 1998 under Order – IX Rule 9 read with 151 CPC with a prayer to set aside the order dated 09-06-1998. The application was opposed by the second respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order dated 21-08-1999. Hence, this civil miscellaneous appeal. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that his client commenced trial of the suit in the right earnest but the progress was hampered on account of seizure of the loan documents by the CBI. He further contends that one application was filed for summoning the officials of the CBI, which in turn was ordered and the other application filed with a prayer to receive the secondary evidence, was pending. The learned counsel submits that an accidental omission to represent the case ought not to have resulted in dismissal of the suit and the trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 3. Learned counsel for the second respondent, on the other hand, submits that the suit was filed way back in the year 1988 and even after 10 years, there was hardly any progress in the matter. He contends that the trial Court took into account, the laxity and lack of interest on the part of the appellant in proceeding with the matter and dismissed the I.A. He contends that the order under appeal does not warrant any interference. 4. The suit was filed for recovery of money on the basis of a loan transaction between the appellant and the first respondent. It was filed in the year 1988 and the commencement of the trial itself was delayed. It was only on 28-10-1984 that PW-1 was examined in chief by the appellant. After that, there was no progress whatever in the trial. 5. It is no doubt true that the appellant filed I.A. No.340 of 1997 under Rule - 16 of Order – X CPC with a prayer to summon the Superintendent of Police, CBI, and the same was allowed. Another application being I.A. No.137 of 1995 was filed seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence, but no steps were taken thereon. 6. It is not as if the respondents herein caused any obstruction for the trial of the suit. The loanee i.e. the first respondent remained ex parte and hardly there was any resistance worth its name for the case of the appellant. Even after three and half years from the date of his chief examination, PW-1 did not turn up for cross-examining himself. All the exercises pleaded by the appellant would hold good if at all for non-examination of other witnesses. There did not exist any justification or basis for not completing the evidence of PW-1 itself. 7. The trial Court did not agree with the version of the appellant as to the developments that took place on 09-06-1988. It emerges that the person who filed the affidavit did not attend the Court at all. Nearly two decades have elapsed ever since the suit was filed. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order of the trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J July 29, 2010. KTL