THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.177 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The 1st appellant filed O.S.No.14 of 1991 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, for the relief of partition of the suit schedule properties, principally against the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the Court of III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, and renumbered as O.S.No.209 of 1998. Since there was no representation for her, on 08.08.2000, the suit was dismissed for default. Thereupon, she filed I.A.No.480 of 2000, under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. During the pendency of that I.A., she died and her legal representatives, being appellants 2 to 4, came on record. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., on 13.10.2003. Hence, this appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 C.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Respondents 1 to 3 were not served, on account of non-payment of batta. This Court has examined the matter, on merits, in detail. As observed earlier, the suit was filed, way back in the year 1991. No relief was claimed against respondents 1 and 2. It was only against respondent No.3 that the relief of partition was claimed. The suit came to be dismissed, on account of the default, on the part of the deceased- 1st appellant. Though she herself filed an application for restoration, she died, when that I.A. was pending, and her legal representatives pursued the matter. The trial Court observed that appellants 2 to 4 have represented that they do not press for any relief against respondent No.3. With that, the whole complexion of the suit has changed. Coming to the merits also, it is evident that, except stating that she was an old aged woman and suffering from ill-health, nothing specific was stated. The trial Court observed that, neither any medical certificate was filed, nor the details of the alleged ailment, were mentioned. By the time, the suit was dismissed, it was pending for nine years and it is one of the most important identified cases. Further, the relief is only for partition of suit schedule properties. The original plaintiff is no more there. If anybody has any interest, vis-à-vis the properties, they can pursue the remedies, on their own. Hence, the C.M.A., is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:27.08.2010 GJ