THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1319 OF 2001 21st August 2009 Between: Balanagu Anatha Lakshmi Venkata Satyavathi, W/o.Sreerama Murthy, 49 years, College Road, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. …APPELLANT AND 1. The Vysya Bank, Allavaram, rep.by its Branch Manager, Allavaram. And four others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1319 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.6 of 1984 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram, for a declaration that she is entitled to the FDR of Rs.75,000/- {Rupees seventy five thousand only} that was drawn on Vysya Bank of Amalapuram Branch, the first respondent herein. After the pleadings were completed, the trial Court framed the issues and the suit became ripe for trial in October 1988. However, it was dismissed for default on 25.07.1989. The appellant filed I.A.No.892 of 1989 under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 {CPC}, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 25.07.1989. That I.A. was dismissed for default on 16.07.1996. Therefore, she filed I.A.No.576 of 1996 under the same provision with a prayer to restore I.A.No.892 of 1989. The application was opposed by the respondents. Through its order, dated 13.12.2000, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.576 of 1996. Hence, this appeal. Heard Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.Mohan and Sri B.Timothy, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. The appellant has to squarely blame herself for the state of affairs that have emerged so far. The suit was filed way back in the year 1984 and by October of that year, it was ripe for trial. A perusal of the record discloses that in spite of the repeated adjournments granted to the appellant, she did not commence the trial and left with no alternative, the trial Court dismissed the suit for default on 25.07.1989. Same performance was repeated in I.A.No.892 of 1989 filed by the appellant under Order IX Rule 9 CPC. Thereafter, she filed I.A.No.576 of 1996. The dispute was as regards an FDR. The first respondent brought to the notice of the trial Court, that the FDR has since been adjusted to the account of the second respondent i.e., State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundary Branch, Hyderabad, long ago. Even assuming that the appellant deserves to be shown indulgence leading to restoration of the suit, nothing remains to be decided. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 21st August 2009 RRB