HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.23 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 30.08.2010 in I.A.No.471 of 2008 in O.S.No.64 of 1998 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam. The petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff, filed the above suit for permanent injunction restraining the third defendant (Krishna Cooperative House Building Society Limited) or its office bearers from cancelling the sale deed submitted to the first respondent (the Sub-Registrar, Madhurawada) in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was posted for trial on 30.12.1999 and since then the matter was adjourned from time to time till 23.06.2004. On 23.06.2004, the Court below imposed costs of Rs.100/- and posted to 07.04.2004; again, the petitioner was called absent on 07.04.2004; the matter further underwent adjournments by imposing costs till 27.09.2004; and, finally, the Court below dismissed the suit for default. The present I.A. was filed, under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, to condone the delay for setting aside the default order on the ground that the suit was pending along with similar batch, that the counsel had not informed about the stage of the suit at any point of time and that, recently, she came to know about the compromise entered into by other persons with the third defendant and the dismissal of her suit for default. Admittedly, the trial of the suit was adjourned from time to time on imposition of costs. Absolutely, the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the suit filed by her. However, no sufficient cause was shown to condone the inordinate delay of 1387 days. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh[1] is of no avail since the delay therein was more than two months whereas, in the instant case, the delay was more than four years. Hence, I do not find any legal infirmity in the order under revision and the Court below rightly dismissed the I.A. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. V. ESWARAIAH,J Date:15.04.2011 usd [1] 2010(6) SCC 786