THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1799 of 2002 JUDGMENT: The C.M.A. has got a chequered history. O.S.No.20 of 1963 was filed by the mother of the petitioner before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, for recovery of possession of an item of property. The suit was decreed. In A.S.No.221 of 1968, this Court recorded compromise, which provided for partition of the suit schedule properties. A final decree was also passed. The appellant filed O.S.No.53 of 1988 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, with a prayer to set aside the final decree. The suit was dismissed for default, on 21.07.1997. The appellant filed I.A.No.1263 of 1997 under Rule 9 of Order IX C.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the order dated 21.07.1997. The application was dismissed on 08.10.2001. Hence, this C.M.A. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. It is brought to the notice of this Court that respondents 1 to 3 and 5 died. There is no representation for other respondents. It is represented that challenging the final decree that was passed in O.S.No.20 of 1963, two more suits were filed, one of them being O.S.No.97 of 1988, in the same Court, between the same parties and almost for the same relief. If that be so, mere disposal of O.S.No.53 of 1988 cannot be a hindrance for the appellant to pursue the remedies. At any rate, he wanted the relief of setting aside the final decree. The trial Court has passed a detailed order, narrating the circumstances that led to the disposal of the suit for default. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:09.11.2011 GJ