SIVA PRASAD B Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the learned District Judge, Ongole in C.M.A. No.50/94, dated 22-8-1996 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Ongole in LA. No.2462/92, dated 1-9-1994 is challenged. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.553/86 and the respondent is the defendant. The case was posted for hearing on 19-6-1992 and since the petitioners did not appear in the Court when the case was called, it was dismissed by the learned Principal District Munsif on the even date. To set aside that order, the petitioners made an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The learned District Munsif while holding that the petitioners never cared to find out the fate of the case from 20-4-1992 to 19-6-1992 and they never even cared to approach the Advocate on the ground that they were busy in arranging the Chief Minister's visit clearly shows that they are not interested in prosecuting the case, dismissed the application. The learned District Judge agreed with the learned District Munsif and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners were prevented from submitting sufficient cause for not presenting in the Court when the case was called on 19-6-1992. The learned District Munsif without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to prove the case, has drawn an inference against them and thereby dismissed the application and with the similar reasoning the learned District Judge also dismissed the appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the attitude of the petitioners is one of negligence and not diligence and being the plaintiffs they even did not care to contact the advocate and were interested in some other matters unconcerned with their own case. Therefore on merits the Courts were right in dismissing the petitioners applications.