MAMIDI RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD Vs. UPULURU SATYAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed against the order, dated 21. 8. 2006, passed in I. A. No. 1588 of 2005 in O. S. No. 596 of 1988, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil judge, Visakhapatnam. The facts that gave rise to the filing of the revision, stated in brief, are as under: the deceased-1st petitioner filed the suit, against the respondent, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The suit was decreed on 16. 11. 1998. The respondent filed A. S. No. 358 of 1999, before this Court. The appeal was allowed on 21. 11. 2001, and the matter was remanded to the trial court, for fresh disposal. It was also observed that the person, who is said to have purchased the property during the pendency of the proceedings, must be impleaded as defendant.

(2.) THE petitioners state that though the appeal was disposed of by this Court, in the year 2001 itself, nothing was forthcoming for years together, and having waited sufficiently, they filed an application, being IAGR No. 7746 of 2004, on 9. 11. 2004, before the trial court, with a prayer to take up the hearing of the suit, after remand. It is said to have been returned, with several endorsements, to the effect that the record was not yet received by the trial court. Finally, it is said to have returned on 4. 8. 2005, with an endorsement that the suit was dismissed for default on 28. 3. 2002, for non-prosecution. Soon thereafter, an application was filed, under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 28. 3. 2004. Since there was delay of 1228 days, in presenting the same, they filed IA. No. 1588 of 2005, under Section 5 of the limitation Act.

(3.) THE petitioners contend that the trial court itself informed them that the hearing of the suit could be taken up, on account of the non-receipt of records, and that neither themselves, nor the original plaintiff, have received any notice of hearing from the court, after the matter was remanded by this Court. It is their case that if the date of knowledge is taken into account, there is no delay, and the trial court ought to have condoned it, paving the way for considering the application for setting aside the order, dated 28. 3. 2002. The trial court dismissed the I. A. , through the order under revision. Hence, this revision.