THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1177 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 01.02.2008, in I.A.No.1520 of 2007 in O.S.No.3230 of 2005 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-plaintiff to condone the delay of 962 days in filing the application under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC to bring the legal representatives of the deceased-1st defendant on record, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents though served with notices. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit-O.S.No.3230 of 2005 against the respondents herein for recovery of certain amount allegedly due. It is stated that though the suit was filed on 31.10.2005, summons issued against the 1st defendant were returned on 30.08.2007 with an endorsement that the 1st defendant died on 12.09.2004. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that application was filed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased-1st defendant on record on 12.09.2007 itself, but the same was returned on 25.09.2007 for taking steps to condone the delay and thereafter the present application-I.A.No.1520 of 2007 was filed on 01.10.2007. Respondents herein remained ex parte in I.A.No.1520 of 2007. The learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application on 01.02.2008. Hence, the present revision by the plaintiff. 5. In the affidavit, filed in support of the application, petitioner has, with reference to the dates, explained how and under what circumstances the present application came to be filed. When the death of the 1st defendant was reported for the first time to the Court on 30.08.2007, petitioner-plaintiff has taken steps immediately to bring the legal representatives of the deceased-1st defendant on record. May be the 1st defendant died on 12.09.2004 but his death came to be reported for the first time before the Court only on 30.08.2007. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was aware of the death of the 1st defendant even earlier or that he filed the suit against the 1st defendant in spite of the knowledge about the death of the 1st defendant. It is highly improbable that the plaintiff would have filed the suit against the dead person if really the plaintiff had knowledge about the death of the deceased-1st defendant. Plaintiff has lost no time in taking steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased- 1st defendant on record, who are the respondents 5 to 7 herein. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any delay on the part of the plaintiff in taking necessary steps, which cannot be condoned. The impugned order, dismissing the application and refusing to condone the delay, is therefore held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.1520 of 2007 stands allowed. 6. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 19th August, 2011. Tsy