IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.NO.302 OF 2009 Date:03.02.2011 Between:- Radhey Sham Bung ..Petitioner And Sri Sai Trading Company, rep.by L.N.Rathi and four others. .. Respondents ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 16- 06-2008 in C.M.A.No.49 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against I.A.No.2581 of 2004 in O.S.No.807 of 1999 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”) to set aside the dismissal of the suit on 18-11-2004, was dismissed. 2. For invoking Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C., if the plaintiff satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court may set aside the order of dismissal and may fix a date for proceeding with the suit. But the phrase “sufficient cause” is not defined. But it must mean a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the order. Any reasonable cause which prevents a person approaching the Court within time is sufficient. In doing so, it is the test of reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied. The test therefore whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. 3. The reason given by the petitioner is that on 18-11-2004, his Advocate was engaged in the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and as such, there was no representation on his behalf. By the time the matter was called, he left the Court premises to answer calls of nature. Therefore, he was present in the Court. The suit is of the year 1999. Even earlier, he failed to attend the Court on 27-10-2004 and 18- 11-2004 when the matter was posted for cross examination. The presence of the counsel for the petitioner may not be necessary because it is coming on for cross examination. In view of the fact that he left the Court premises for the reason that he was suffering from diarrhea, one more opportunity can be given. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. Therefore, considering the fact that he was not diligent in prosecuting the case and that only on two occasions, he did not attend the Court, the suit can be restored to file, but there are latches on the part of the petitioner in not properly prosecuting the case, it is made clear that he is not entitled for the interest from the date of default i.e., 27-10-2004 in case he ultimately succeeds in the suit. 4. With the above observation, I.A.No.2581 of 2004 in O.S.No.807 of 1999 filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, C.R.P. is allowed. The petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) to the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner paid costs of Rs.2,000/- to the learned counsel for the respondents. After restoring the suit, since the suit is of the year 1999, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferably, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 3rd February, 2011 AMD