THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.974 and 2146 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are connected with each other and parties are common. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioner filed O.S.No.49 of 2009 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa against the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent. The trial of the suit commenced. It was posted to 28.04.2009 for recording the evidence on behalf of the petitioner. Since there was no representation, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 28.04.2009. The petitioner filed I.A.No.630 of 2009 under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the order, dated 28.04.2009. The I.A. was allowed on 10.08.2009 on condition that the petitioner shall adduce evidence on or before 18.08.2009. On that day, neither the petitioner nor his G.P.A. Holder were ready. Both of them were abroad. Therefore, I.A.No.1221 of 2009 was filed under Section 148 C.P.C. with a prayer to enlarge the time for adducing evidence till October, 2009. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. on 18.08.2009. As a result, I.A.No.630 of 2009 was also dismissed through a separate order on the same day. Hence, these two revisions. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.P.Rajani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution almost at the inception. The trial Court has shown indulgence to the petitioner and has allowed I.A.No.630 of 2009 on condition that he shall commence the evidence. The condition was not complied with on the ground that the G.P.A. Holder has also gone abroad. This Court would have certainly interfered with the orders passed by the trial Court and granted relief to the petitioner, had there been any possibility for commencing the evidence in the near future. C.R.P.No.974 of 2010 was filed in the month of November, 2009. The matter was adjourned to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to find out at the earliest, by what date his client would be in a position to adduce evidence. After two adjournments, it is reported that there is no possibility for the petitioner or his G.P.A. Holder to come back to India at least till October, 2010. The trial Court cannot be expected to wait for the arrival of the petitioner for such a long time. Since the suit is for recovery of rents simplicitor and inasmuch as it was dismissed for non-prosecution, the petitioner can file a fresh suit at his convenience. Therefore, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. It is, however, made clear that since the suit is dismissed for non-prosecution, the dismissal shall not preclude the petitioner from filing a fresh suit at his convenience. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.07.2010 kdl