THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3080 of 2011 August 27, 2011 Between: Kommu Paulinamma, W/o.Late Prabhakara Rao And others ... Petitioners And Kommu Venkataratnam (died) And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3080 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.No.323 of 1997. They filed the suit for partition. The same was dismissed for default on 16.1.2003. They filed I.A. (SR) No.4044 of 2003 under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to set aside the order dismissing the suit for default. The application was also dismissed on 19.6.2006. Aggrieved by the same, they statedly filed appeal being CMA No.111 of 2006 before this Court, which is pending. In the mean while, the first defendant died on 21.12.2000. All along, presumably the petitioners were aware but, they did not take steps to bring the legal representatives of the first defendant on record. After more than three years, they filed an application under Order XXII Rule 9 of CPC to set aside abatement and another application to bring legal representatives on record. They also filed I.A.No.1239 of 2003 under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC to condone the delay of three years 59 days to set aside the abatement. By the impugned order dated 19.6.2006, the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry dismissed the same, aggrieved by which the present civil revision petition is filed. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the connected CMA is pending, this CRP may be tagged on to the same. This Court is afraid the submission cannot be accepted. In this CRP, the question is limited to the validity of the order passed by the Court below in dismissing the IA No.1239 of 2003 in refusing to condone the delay of three years 59 days. I have perused the affidavit of the first petitioner accompanying the I.A. No.1239 of 2003. No substantial reason much less sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay of three years 59 days in filing the application under Order XXII Rule 9 of CPC, this Court does not see any strong reason to differ from the view taken by the Court below. The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. _________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) August 27, 2011 YS