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.982 OF 2007 Between: Kiran Krishna Real Estates, a construction Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri Krishna Prasad and G.P.A. holder P. Anand Babu. --- Appellant/ Petitioner/ Plaintiff. AND P.V.S. Prasad. --- Respondent/ Respondent/ Defendant. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.982 OF 2007 JUDGEMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against dismissal order dated 20-02-2007, passed in I.A. No.315 of 2006 in I.A. No.2017 of 2005 in O.S. No.1421 of 2003, on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The said application was filed under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to set aside ex parte order dated 08-02-2006 passed in I.A. No.2017 of 2005 in O.S. No.1421 of 2003. It is observed in the order passed by the lower Court that after the dismissal of the suit, I.A. No.2017 of 2005 was filed for the restoration of the suit without giving notice to the other side and therefore it was dismissed and thereafter for the restoration of the same, I.A. No.315 of 2006 was filed and in spite of giving necessary opportunity the petitioner therein (i.e., appellant herein) failed to take necessary measures to prosecute the suit and he had lethargically dealt with the suit proceedings and therefore I.A. No.315 of 2006 was dismissed. 3. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent. 4. Good reasons were not given for the dismissal of I.A. No.315 of 2006 against which the present appeal has been preferred. Further, it is quite unfortunate that I.A. No.2017 of 2005 was dismissed just on the ground that necessary notice was not served upon the opposite party. It is the duty of the lower Court to see that there was proper service of notice on the opposite party. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that as the counsel of the opposite party happened to be a resident of Eluru, West Godavari District, immediately his client could not serve any notice upon him. 5. For the foregoing reasons, there are merits in the Appeal and accordingly the Appeal is to be allowed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed in I.A. No.315 of 2006 in I.A. No.2017 of 2005 in O.S. No.1421 of 2003 without costs and the lower Court is directed to dispose of the petition giving proper reasons. Further, the matter has become very old and hence the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, is directed to see that the matter is disposed of within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 24-02-2011. Dsh.