MOHD JAMEEL Vs. SHAIK BIKKAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani and Sri T.S. Anand, learned Counsel representing the parties.

(2.) The C.R.P. is filed as against an order made in C.M.A.No.27/99 on the file of the 1-Additional District Judge, Warangal, confirming the order made in I.A.No.650 of 1995 in O.S.No.6 of 1998 on the file of the II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

(3.) The revision petitioners are the unsuccessful petitioners in both the Courts below. The petitioners filed an application in LA.No.650 of 1995 in O.S.No.6 of 1998 on the file of the II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying the Court to restore the suit in O.S.No.6 of 1998 by setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 25-9-1995. The second plaintiff in the said suit had sworn to the affidavit in supporting the application wherein it was stated that they filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent- defendant and the suit was called along with O.S.No.l74/87and it was only on 12-9-1995 that the case was posted to 15-9-1995 and they have been under the impression that the suit will be called along with O.S.No.174/87 and on 15-9-1995 the suit was again posted to 21-9-1995 and on the said day the suit was dismissed for default. The other side had not filed any counter. The Court below had observed that the suit docket does not disclose any order of joint trial or simultaneous trial of O.S.No.6/88 along with O.S.No.174/87 and taking the conduct of the parties also into consideration, specifying several dates, ultimately came to the conclusion that the parties are not interested in prosecuting the matter despite the imposition of costs at twice and hence, the application was dismissed by the Court of first instance, which was also confirmed in the appeal by the I-Additional District Judge, Warangal by an order dated 11-12-2000 and aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. had been preferred.