CHEEMALAPATI VENKATASURYANARAYANAMURTY AND OTHERS Vs. MANTHENA RAMABHADRARAJU ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These miscellaneous appeals arise out of the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam dated the 21st December, 1956 passed in I.A. Nos. 535 to 541 of 1956, dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants to set aside the orders of dismissal passed in the suits filed by them and the ex parte decrees passed against them.

(2.) The appellants filed suits O.S. Nos. 85/1952, 95/1952 and 103/1952 for cancellation of agreements executed by them in favour of the respondents, while four suit Nos. 141, 142 and 143 of 1953 and 66 of 1955 were filed by the respondents and others against the appellants for specific performance on the basis of the same agreement suit No. 66 of 1955 being a suit for the recovery of rent from the appellants. With the consent of the parties a joint trial was agreed to and after several adjournments the suits were peremptorily posted for trial to 20-9-1956. On that date the appellants made no arrangements for the conduct of the case and instead thereof, sought to secure a further adjournment on the ground that the advocate at Guntur was making a move to the High Court for a stay. The learned Subordinate Judge refused to grant adjournment and dismissed the suits filed by the appellants and decreed the suits filed against them ex parte. The appellants filed the above cited petitions (I.A. Nos. 535 to 541 of 1956) to set aside the orders of dismissal and the ex parte decrees passed against them. They pleaded that one of the appellants i.e., Ganeshwararao was the only person acquainted with the facts of the case and that he had gone to Guntur to move for stay of the trial of the suits. The advocate at Guntur had sent a telegram to their advocate at Visakhapatnam indicating that he would move the High Court for stay, asking him to take a short adjournment. The telegram was filed in the court along with an application; the court (might) have granted them an adjournment to enable them to move the High Court instead of disposing of the cases as mentioned above. They further plead that there were no laches on their part and they were always diligent and unless the petitions were allowed they would suffer irreparable loss.

(3.) The petitions were opposed by the respondents alleging that the petitioners were never keen on getting ready and they were simply prolonging the trial by seeking adjournments. The learned Subordinate Judge after an enquiry, held that there were no reasonable or sufficient grounds for allowing the petitions and accordingly dismissed the I.As. These appeals are directed against the said orders.