THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. No. 5012 of 2010 Dated. 19–11-2010 Between: Maddipudi Venkata Rao …Petitioner Vs. Reddi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Chowdary …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 5012 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: The revision is directed against the rejection of C.M.A.No. 24 of 2009 by the learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry by the order dated 21-06-2010. The revision petitioner is the defendant, who suffered a decree of a permanent injunction in the suit instituted by the respondent herein in the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru. Thereagainst the revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. The appeal was dismissed on 25-03-2008 for default on the ground that the learned counsel for the appellant was not ready to argue the matter despite the fact that the matter was peremptorily posted on three occasions viz., 24-01-2008; 15-02-2008 and 25-03-2008. Thereafter the petitioner filed interlocutory application (I.A.No. 323 of 2008 in A.S.No. 52 of 2003) in the appeal to set aside the order dismissing the appeal for default on the ground that the petitioner was not informed by the counsel about the date of adjournment. That application was rejected by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, by the order dated 27-08-2008. Thereagainst the revision petitioner preferred C.M.A.No. 24 of 2009 before the learned District Judge, East Godavari, which was also rejected by the order impugned holding that the successive defaults by the counsel for the petitioner in the first appellate court discloses absolute lack of diligence on the part of the counsel and the appellant (revision petitioner) in prosecuting the appeal. Having regard to the regnant negligence of the revision petitioner’s counsel before the first appellate court, the learned District Judge, East Godavari, at Rajahmundry rightly found that the rejection of I.A.No. 323 of 2008 in A.S.No. 52 of 2003 by the order dated 27-08-2008 of the lerned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram suffers from no error warranting appellate interference. No error either in the application of law or in exercise of discretion by the court below is discernable warranting revisional interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 19-11-2010 Pvks/*