P. PANDYA Vs. P. UDAYALAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of order dated 11.12.2012 in CMA.No.53 of 2012 passed by the Principal District Judge, Warangal, whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs challenging dismissal order dated 24.04.2012 in IA.No.140 of 2012 in O.S.No.40 of 2011 has been dismissed.

(2.) The suit in O.S.No.40 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, was filed for decree of permanent injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants, their agents, workmen etc. from interfering with peaceful possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. The suit was posted for trial on 24.01.2012. There was no appearance on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs. They were called absent. The suit was dismissed for default. An application in I.A.No.140 of 2012 was filed by the petitioners under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside the default order dated 24.01.2012. It was stated in the affidavit filed in support of the said application that when the suit was posted for trial on 24.01.2012, the counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs was engaged before the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal in S.C.No.313 of 2010. The respondents/defendants opposed the application stating that the matter was posted finally on 24.01.2012 for leading evidence. The reason assigned by the petitioners/plaintiffs is absurd and vague.

(3.) The Court below pointed out that the petitioners/plaintiffs have availed unreasonable time for commencement of evidence and have not chosen to file chief affidavit expressing their readiness. Hence, dismissed the petition. It was also observed by the Court below that the counsel being engaged in other Court is not a ground for adjournment under Order XVII Rule 1 CPC and the said reason is impermissible and unsatisfactory. Thus, there is no sufficient cause for non-appearance on 24.01.2012.