Smt Vangapally Rajya Lakshmi, Wo v. Ramapathi Rao, Aged about

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant interim injunction to restrain the respondents not to alienate the petition schedule property of agricultural land in Sy. No. Z0t2A1 _ Ac.1-00 Gts., Sy No. 20lA111 -Ac.1-00 Gts. and Sy. No 2Ot4 - Ac.0-20 Gts., in total admeasuring Ac.2-20 Gts. situated at Shinkarpur Village and Gram Panchayat, Shamshabad Mandal, R. R. District to third parties and create charge pending disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY All that the agricultural land in Sy. No. 2012A1 , admeasuring Ac.1-00 Gts., Sy. No. 2014 admeasuring Ac.O-20 Gts., total admeasuring Ac.2-20 Gts. situated at - Shankarapur Village and Gram Panchayat, Shamshabad IVIandal, Ranga Reddy District bounded by: North :Agriculture Land of Ravinder Reddy Soutl' : Agriculture Land of T- Dayanand East:Agriculture Land of [VI. Narsimha Reddy West : Agriculture Land of M. Ravinder Reddy Counsel for the Appellant:SRl. B N SWAMIJI Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I a I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY C.M.A.No.48 OF 2025 JUDGMENT 'l'l-re present appeai has been hled aggrieved by the order daLed 26.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.66 of 2023 in O.S.No. 1258 of 2017, on the filc o[ the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar

2. I leerrd Sri B.N. Swamiji, learned counsel for appellant and Sri A. Ramakr-rshna Reddy, learned counscl for respondent No.2.

3. Appell:rnt herein is plaintiff and respondents herein are delendants lrcforc thc trial Court. For convenience, the parties hereinaftcr thc partics are referred to as they w.ere arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The bricf facts of the present appeal zLre thatt the plaintiff fited O.S.No. 1258 of 2Ol7 for specific performance of Agreement of sale, against thc defendants. Defendants entered appearance and filcd written stzrtcment dcnying thc averments in the plaint. Issues we re framed and malter was coming up for trial since 27.O7.2022 the plair-rtiff had been taking time for adducing evidence and hnally the ma[ter was posled to 03.Ol .2023 conditionally. Or-r O3.O1.2O23, plaintifl failed to adduce evidence and there was no 2 LNA,! CtlA No.48 ol2025 \ representation on his behalf, therelorc, trial Courr clismissed the suit for defirult. Later, plaintift filed I.A.No.66 of 2023, unrler Crrder IX, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., to st:t zLside the dismissal trrder dated 03.O1.2023 and restore tL t: suir. In the affidavit, hled in support of the apptication, it w.s averred that plainLifi was out of station and learned Senior Cour.rsel was hospitalized and the junior counsel was held up in anothcr Court and thereforc, no altcrnative arrangement was maric to represent the matter and that non - reprc sentertion was neither intentional nor wanton.

5. Defendants filed countcr resisting the alores ricl application and contended that reasons stated by the plaintiff ure untenable and not acceptable, therefore, application is liable tr, be dismissed. It was further averred that suit was coming up tdr, trial since 27.OL2O22, and the plaintiff was not prescnt beforr_. the Court to proceed with the case and dcspite the conditional order, plaintiff failed to adduce the evidencc and was protracting the matter to harass the rlefendants

6. 'lhe trial Court, on due consideration of the ltlcadjngs and submissions mnde by both the parties, clismis s<:tj the said application vide impugned order detted 26.12.2024 with an -// 3 LNA,,I cMA No.as of 2O2s observation that despite taking nearly one year time, plaintift faited to commcnce trierl and has been taking time on one pretext or other, which clearly shows that plaintiff is not diligent in prosecuting the casc and thus, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by thc impr.rgued order daLcd 26.12.2024, preser-rt Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is 11led.

7. Learned counsel lor the appettant contended that counsel on record for plaintitf was hospitalized for treatment of glaucoma and his junior was hcld u p irt another Court and therefore, thcy could not represent the mattcr befcrrc thc lrial Court on 03.01.2023. IIe lurther submitted that despite explaining the reasons for non- appea-rance, triat Court has dismissed the application erroneously. Learned counsel furthcr contended that. appellant is ready to commence trial, without laking further time on a-ny date and also ready to comply wi[h any condition which may be imposed by this Court and prayed to allow Lhe appeal.

8. Per contra, learned coutrsel for respondent No.2 contended that suit was coming up for trial sincc 27.O)..2022 and plaintiff had been Laking time on one pretext or other and despite the conditional ordcr, plaintifl lailcd to commence trial on 03.OI.2023 and there was no reprcsentation on behalf of plaintiff, lherefore, !- \1 4 LNA,I ctvta No 46 0l202s trial Courl has rightly dismissed the suit for cll,laull. LezLrned counsel fuither contended that counsel for the pli intiff could not represent the matter as he has hospitalizerl, howev-.r, plaintifl- was not diligenl. in prosecuting the case and no valid rezrsons hzrve been shown for thc absence of the plaintiff, despitc pos ing o[ the case conditionally, which clearly shows that plaintiff is r.t intt:rested in prosecutin[] the case. Therelbre, plaintilf ts not ( ntitlerl to seek indulgence of this Court and appeal is liablc to be d Lsntissed as the same is devoitl o[ any merit.

9. Perusal o[ the record would disclose that suit u,a s <:,rming up for trial since 27.O1.2O22 and plaintiff did not com rrence the trial even after lapsc of one year and the suit was poste( (o 03.01.2023 conditionally and even on that day, neither plainti[. was present, nor there was any representation on his bchalf, t hr:refore, trial Court disr,issed the suit for default. In thc aff rl:rvit. fileri in support of [he application, except stating that plairrritt uras out of station and learned Senior. Counsel was hospitali;;r.rl and ju nior counsel was helcl up in another Court, plaintil-l- lailt <l lo place any material on rec.rd to substantiate his contention and failed to ^lso offer plausible explanation ancl cogent reasons for nc t adducing the evidence since 27.O7.2022. From the facts and cir:.r,r mstances of ,/ -/ 5 LNA,I CMA No.48 oi 2025 the case, it can be said that plzrintiff is not diligent in prosecuting the case and has failed to offcr cogent, convincing reasons for his absence and also non-representaLion on his behall on 03.O1.2023. Therefore, this Court does not find any reasoll to intcrfere with the impugned order passed by thc trial Court.

10. [n view of the above submissiot-t made by the counsel on either sides, the Civil Miscellaucous Appcal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous appliczitions if any shall stand closed. SD/- A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII CTION OFFICER \ To,

1. The lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B, Nagar.(with any)

2. One CC to SRl. B N SWAMIJI Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Advocate TOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies records if PM/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:09/06/2025 ORDER CMA.No.48 of 2025 iJ .\ ,, 17 SiP ?ffi .t " t',- '. j, \.+ c -/ DISMISSING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL 6