THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1612 of 2002 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.48 of 1996 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur against the respondents claiming damages. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 were the employees of the erstwhile Telephone Department and respondent No.2 functioned as Sub-Inspector in the early 1990s. The appellant was a subscriber to a Telephone, which at the relevant point of time was manually operated. It is stated that the Telephone was disconnected on the ground that he is harassing the employees of the department and on a complaint submitted by respondent No.1, respondent No.2 registered a case. Ultimately, the appellant was acquitted. It is in this background that the appellant claimed damages against the respondents. The suit was dismissed for default on 08.02.2001. On the next day itself, the appellant filed I.A.No.133 of 2001 under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to restore the suit. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 15.12.2001. Hence, this appeal. Sri A.V.Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has taken mostly the previous events into account and the same is opposed to law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.P.Srivastava Vs. R.K.Raizada and others[1]. He contends that for an accidental omission on the part of the appellant to be present when the case was called, he cannot be denied the right to prosecute the rights. Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, submits that the suit was identified for disposal by the trial Court and hardly there was any cooperation or assistance from the appellant. He contends that the trial Court was left with no alternative except to dismiss the suit for default. A perusal of the order under appeal discloses that the trial Court has referred to the acts of non-cooperation on the part of the appellant in proceeding with the case. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the previous conduct of the parties or advocates cannot be taken as sole basis while dealing with an application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 or under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. It is also a fact that the application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. was filed by the appellant on the very next date. However, the explanation offered by the appellant for not being present on 08.02.2001 was hardly convincing. The trial Court observed that there were no other identified cases and there was impending urgency to dispose of the suit. It was also mentioned that a representation on behalf of the appellant was made to the effect that he is not ready on 08.02.2001. Earlier to that, the Vakalat was changed thrice. One important aspect that needs to be taken into account is that the respondents are not permanent residents of Narsapur and they have only worked as employees at the relevant point of time. A prolonged trial of the suit would make it necessary for them to attend that Court as well as to incur expenditure, for defending them. This Court is of the view that no interference is warranted with the order under appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:23.07.2010 kdl [1] 2000(4) ALD 54 (SC)