HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3420 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff aggrieved by order dated 20.03.2009 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dismissing I.A.No.227 of 2008 in O.S.No.478 of 2004 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking to condone the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC. The petitioner-plaintiff instituted O.S.No.478 of 2004 against the respondents-defendants seeking relief of permanent injunction. On dismissal of the suit for default, he filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the suit and as there is delay of 95 days in filing the said application, he filed the impugned I.A.No.227 of 2008 seeking to condone the delay, stating that the 1st respondent instituted O.S.No.2478 of 2004 against him for declaration that EFGH portion shown in the plaint plan therein and plaint schedule is a part of the land allotted to it by the Government and for a direction to the plaintiff herein to deliver vacant possession of 170 sq. yards of site shown in the plaint schedule and red colour marked portion “EFGH” in the plaint plan after demolishing the thatched hut constructed by the plaintiff herein and also for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff herein from ever alienating the plaint schedule property and that since there is comprehensive suit filed by the 1st respondent-defendant, the petitioner herein filed transfer O.P. before the District Court, Machilipatnam, which is pending and therefore, he could not turn up for cross-examination on 5.1.2007 on which date, his evidence was eschewed and the suit was dismissed for default. The Court below dismissed the I.A. on the ground that as the petitioner failed to turn up for cross-examination on 5.1.2007, the suit was dismissed and at his instance, on 6.11.2006 on which day he was examined himself as P.W.1 in chief, the matter was adjourned for cross-examination and thereafter, the matter went on several adjournments from 30.10.2006 to 5.1.2007 and on 5.1.2007, as the petitioner was absent, his evidence was eschewed and the suit was dismissed and that as per the docket orders, it is no where brought to the notice of the Court below about the pendency of transfer O.P. before the District Court, Machilipatnam and that the delay has not been properly explained. Hence, the present revision. Inspite of service of notice on the respondents, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the 1st respondent having intended to avail the alternative remedy prayed the Court below to dismiss O.S.No.2478 of 2004 filed by it and hence, the said suit was dismissed as not pressed, and in view of the same, the petitioner-plaintiff has to proceed with the present suit. Since the petitioner has not explained any satisfactory reasons for his absence after his examination on 6.11.2006 and also about the pendency of the transfer O.P., I feel that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the suit. But however, in view of the nature of the suit, on condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs to the District Legal Services Authority, within three weeks from today, the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC is condoned. In default, I.A.No.227 of 2008 stands dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date:19th August, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3420 OF 2009 19.8.2011 Nn