HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5241 OF 2007 DATE:19-11-2010 BETWEEN Emani Ranga Rao & Another …Petitioners AND Vanapalli Nagendra Babu & others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5241 OF 2007 ORDER: Petitioners-plaintiffs filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid passed in C.M.A.No.31 of 2003, dated 17.9.2007 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs against the dismissal of I.A.No.246 of 1995 in O.S.No.151 of 1986, dated 19.8.1998 filed for restoration of suit dismissed for default on 7.4.1995 by the Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid was dismissed. The petitioners-plaintiffs having instituted the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale have not evinced any interest to lead evidence in which, as many as 28 adjournments were granted from 12.8.1993 to 21.12.1994. Later the matter was adjourned to 7.4.1995. On the said date also, as the plaintiffs have not come forward to adduce any evidence, the suit was dismissed for default. To restore the suit, I.A.No.246 of 1995 was filed. The trial Court after elaborately considering the lapses on the part of the petitioners-plaintiffs dismissed the I.A., against which, the plaintiffs filed C.M.A.No.31 of 2003. The appeal was also dismissed by the impugned order confirming the order of the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to explain the delay in filing the C.M.A. after five years of dismissal of I.A.No.246 of 1995, but he states that the C.M.A. was filed with condone delay application, which fact is not borne by record. Be that as it may, the suit itself is filed for specific performance in the year 1986 and nearly after 7 years it was taken up for hearing, but it was dragged on for 2 years to lead the evidence. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed for default in the year 1998 and that on dismissal of I.A. filed for restoration of the suit, the appeal was also filed with a delay of 5 years. Therefore, the petitioners want to restore the suit to the date of 25 years back thereby to put the respondents- plaintiffs to undergo mental agony and to face the trial in the suit. Having regard to the lapses on the part of the petitioners- plaintiffs, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Court below in dismissing the appeal. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. NOVEMBER 19, 2010 Tsr.