IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2803 OF 2011 Between: A.Padmalatha. … Petitioner And Ch.Lakshmamma and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Dr.Y.Radhakrishna Murthy. Counsel for the respondents: ---- This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 28-3-2011, in I.A.No.174 of 2009 in O.S.No.100 of 2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet (for short “the lower Court”), whereby the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 734 days in filing the application for restoration of the suit under Order IX Rule 9 CPC was dismissed. I have heard Dr.Y.Radhakrishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner filed O.S.No.100 of 2004 in the lower court for partition of the suit properties and allotment of 1/5th share to her. The said suit was initially referred to Lok Adalat for a compromise. Evidently, the petitioner has filed a joint memo along with the respondents-defendants agreeing for withdrawal of the said suit. However, as the petitioner failed to appear before the Lok Adalat, the suit was referred back to the lower court for disposal on merits. When the petitioner was not present on 20-2-2007, the lower court has dismissed the suit in default. The petitioner, having kept quiet for a long time, has filed I.A.No.174 of 2009 for condonation of 734 days delay in filing the application for restoration of the suit. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit resisting the said application. The lower court, after considering the rival pleadings, has dismissed the said application. I have carefully considered the material on record. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner has pleaded that the parties have agreed for a compromise of the suit and that, in view of the same, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat; that the respondents have misrepresented to her that her presence was not necessary on 20-2-2007 before the lower court and that, therefore, she did not attend the court, which resulted in dismissal of the suit in default. She further stated that she has requested the respondents several times to allot her share and recently she came to know on her enquiries that the suit was dismissed in default. In my opinion, the reasons put forth by the petitioner are too vague and they lack in material particulars. The petitioner did not state the reason why she was not present before the Lok Adalat in pursuance of the alleged compromise. Due to the absence of the petitioner, the case was referred back to the lower court. Even though the petitioner sought to explain her absence before the lower court on 20-2-2007, resulting in dismissal of the suit for default, she failed to explain as to why she remained quiet for more than two years if the respondents have not redeemed their promise of giving a share to her. The petitioner has failed to show any diligence whatsoever in prosecuting her case and has squarely blamed the respondents for allegedly misrepresenting her. Being the plaintiff in the suit, she is expected to be always diligent in prosecuting her case instead of relying upon the defendants even though they may have been her close relations. The lower court has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to come out with proper explanation for condonation of huge delay. For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, CMP No.4023 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:12-8-2011 MNR