THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.M.A.NO. 893 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the docket order dated 21.02.2006 in I.A.(SR).No.4002 of 2005 in MVOP No.352 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, rejecting the application filed by the appellants to set aside the default order dated 03.10.2005 passed against R.1 and R.2. 2 The case of the appellants is that the clerk of their advocate noted the date of hearing as 18.10.2005 instead of 03.10.2005. The appellants appeared in the court on 18.10.2005, but, as the matter was not called on that day, they enquired from the office of the court below and came to know that the matter was called on 03.10.2005 and that for non payment of batta for service of notice to the respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition, the O.P. was dismissed for default against R.1 and R.2. Hence the appellants filed I.A.(SR).No.4002 of 2005 under Order IX Rule 9 CPC seeking to set aside the default order dated 03.10.2005 passed against R.1 and R.2. But the said I.A.(SR) No.4002 of 2005 was rejected on the ground that no sufficient ground was shown for setting aside the said default order. 3 The learned counsel for the appellants contended that appellants gave proper explanation for not paying the batta and hence the trial court ought to have given an opportunity to the appellants to prosecute the case. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appellants have not given proper explanation for not paying the batta for service of notices to R.1 and R.2. 4 If a party is prevented by a sufficient cause from not attending the court when the matter was called, it can be said to be a sufficient reason under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. The date of hearing of the case was informed to the appellants by the clerk of their advocate as 18.10.2005. But, actually the date of hearing was on 03.10.2005. The appellants went to the Court on 18.10.2005 and came to know about the dismissal order passed against R.1 and R.2. So proper explanation was given by the appellants and hence the impugned order can be set aside. 5 Hence the CMA is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the petition filed by the appellants to set aside the default order dated 03.10.2005 passed against R.1 and R.2 is allowed. However, laches on the part of the appellants, it is made clear that the appellants are not entitled to interest from 03.10.2005 till the date of commencement of trial on the compensation that may be awarded by the Tribunal. No costs. ---------------------- K.C. BHANU, J. 26.08.2011 Kvsn