IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.24-02-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 4126 OF 2003 Between: Suja and three others. --- Appellants/ Petitioners. AND The General Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4126 OF 2003 ORDER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C. against order dated 15-03-2002, passed in I.A. No.1274 of 1999 filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. in O.P. No.171 of 1992, on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Hereinafter referred as ‘the learned Chief Judge’) seeking to set aside dismissal order dated 05-08-1993, passed in O.P. No.171 of 1992 and restore it, was dismissed. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 5 petition was allowed but she is unable to file a copy of it before the Court and further learned Chief Judge, dismissed the Interlocutory Application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. without proper reasons 3. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to whether sufficient grounds are given to allow the application and the lower Court properly disposed of the matter? 4. In the Interlocutory Application, it is pleaded as follows : “The petitioners used to appear regularly but the Court has not taken up the matter and the case is posted as a last chance on 05-08-1993 and on that day, the petitioners could not attend the Court in time, but the petitioners came to Court at 11-30 a.m. and as there was no representation the matter was dismissed for default on 05-08-1993. Therefore, the petitioners are blaming the Court for not taking up the case in spite of the petitioners appearing before the Court. The petitioners also stating that on 05-08-1993, she appeared before the Court at 11- 30 a.m. and learnt that the petition was dismissed for default, but very strongly this petition is filed on 10-11- 1999 i.e., after lapse of 6 years. In the affidavit, she states that her advocate has not filed petition in time. So, the petitioners started blaming the Advocate and no sufficient grounds were shown for filing this petition with so much of delay and I do not find any sufficient grounds to set aside the dismissal order as it is true that the petitioners were present in the Court on 05-08-1993 nothing was prevented her to file this petition on the same day or within time. That itself shows that the petitioner is negligent in prosecuting her case” 5. It is pertinent to note here that according to the petitioners’ Advocate Section 5 petition was allowed in which the delay caused in filing the present Interlocutory Application would have been condoned. In such case, the same delay should not be considered again. When Section 5 petition was allowed there is no meaning in dismissing the application considering the delay once again. 6. There is no reason to disbelieve her contention and hence, in the circumstances stated, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 15-03-2002, passed in I.A. No.1274 of 1999 in O.P. No.171 of 1992 by learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. However, as the matter has became very old, learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 24-02-2011. Note: Issue C.C. by 03-03-11 B/o.Dsh.