THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5143; 5200 & 5161 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: Civil Revision Petition No.5143 of 2008 is directed against the order, dated 12-06-2008 in I.A.No.464 of 2008 in O.S.No.564 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 422 days in filing the application to implead them as legal representatives of the deceased-1st plaintiff is dismissed. 2. Civil Revision Petition No.5200 of 2008 is directed against the order, dated 12-06-2008 in I.A.No.465 of 2008 in O.S.No.564 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said application filed for setting aside the abatement on account of the death of the 1st plaintiff was dismissed. 3. Civil Revision Petition No.5161 of 2008 is directed against the order, dated 12-06-2008, in I.A.No.466 of 2008 in O.S.No.564 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC to implead the plaintiffs 2 and 3 as legal representatives of the deceased-1st plaintiff was dismissed. 4. As the three Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the same proceedings, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners. None appeared for the respondents though served with notices. Perused the record. 6. Revision petitioners in all the three Civil Revision Petitions seek to come on record as legal representatives of the deceased-1st plaintiff, being the wife and son of the deceased. The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2-respondents 1 and 2 herein and their men from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. The original plaintiff died on 22-09-2006 during the pendency of the suit. Petitioners 2 and 3 herein seek to come on record as plaintiffs 2 and 3 on the ground that they being the sole legal representatives of the deceased-1st plaintiff, being his wife and son and having succeeded to his estate, are entitled to continue the proceedings in the suit. However, as there was a delay in filing the L.R. application, the suit got abated. In the meanwhile, on account of the death of the original plaintiff petitioners filed I.A.No.464 of 2008 for condoning the delay of 422 days; I.A.No.465 of 2008 for setting aside the abatement and I.A.No.466 of 2008 for impleading them as legal representatives. Even before I.A.No.464 of 2008 was ordered the other two applications were also numbered and all the three petitions were dismissed by the trial Court by similar order, mainly on the ground that the delay is not properly explained and in spite of the directions by this Court in earlier C.R.P.No.5898 of 2003 to dispose of the suit within three months the plaintiff was not getting ready previously. The suit was dismissed for default on 05-04- 1995 and the plaintiff filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for setting aside the default dismissal order but the same was also dismissed by the trial Court and appeal in C.M.A.No.25 of 2001 filed by the plaintiff before the District Court, Vizianagaram was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed C.R.P.No.5898 of 2003. This Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and directed restoration of the suit subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/- to the defendant and also further directed to dispose of the suit within three months. It appears that even by the date of disposal of the said Civil Revision Petition, the plaintiff already died on 22-09-2006. Petitioners therefore plead that on account of the death of the original plaintiff, the suit could not be proceeded further. 7. There is a delay of 422 days in filing the L.R. application. According to the petitioners, the suit was filed by the original plaintiff and was being looked after by him alone and they had no knowledge of pendency of the suit and they came to know about the suit only after the defendants again started interfering with their possession. No doubt, the 2nd petitioner is the wife and the 3rd petitioner is the son of the deceased-plaintiff. However, having regard to the fact that the plea of the petitioners that they were not aware of the pendency of the suit as the same was being looked after by the deceased-plaintiff alone is not controverted by the respondents before this Court and with a view to give an opportunity to the plaintiffs-petitioners to come on record as the legal representatives of the deceased-1st plaintiff and further prosecute the suit so that the same can be disposed of on merits and there being no dispute regarding the legal heirship of the petitioners to the original plaintiff, it is considered that the delay in filing the L.R. application can be condoned. 7. There is nothing on record to show that in spite of having knowledge of pendency of the suit and the directions contained in the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.5898 of 2003 the petitioners have wantonly delayed in filing of the L.R. application. It is stated that the petitioners have already paid the costs of Rs.2000/- imposed earlier for restoration of the suit to file as ordered by this Court. Petitioners are now directed to pay further costs of Rs.2000/- to the contesting defendant for the delay in filing the L.R. application. It is stated that the 2nd respondent also died and steps are to be taken to implead the legal representatives of the said respondent. 8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the delay of 422 days in filing the L.R. application is condoned subject to payment of Rs.2000/- by the petitioners to the 1st respondent herein and on such payment the abatement of the suit on account of the death of the 1st plaintiff also stands set aside and the petitioners 2 and 3 be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceasd-1st plaintiff. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 21st August, 2009. Tsy