THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4191 OF 2007 DATED: 07.06.2010 Between : C. Venkataramana … Petitioner And 1. J.Ganesh Ranganatha @ Ganesh Ranganath Gupta (Died) 2. J. Nagalakshmi 3. J. Delip Kumar 4. J. Ranga 5. Thirumalaiah … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4191 OF 2007 ORDER: The plaintiff in O.S.No.310 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri, Anantapur District is the Revision petitioner. The said suit was filed for recovery of money allegedly due from the 1st respondent herein under a promissory note. However, the 1st respondent/sole defendant died on 15.10.2004 and therefore the plaintiff/Revision petitioner filed application on 7.3.2005 to bring his legal representatives on record. As there was delay in taking steps, the plaintiff had also filed applications to set aside the abetment and to condone the delay in seeking to set aside the abatement. It appears that the application to condone the delay was not pressed by the counsel for the plaintiff and therefore a fresh application was filed on 28.11.2005 with the same prayer. The said application which was numbered as I.A.No.712 of 2005 was opposed by the proposed legal representatives/respondents 2 to 5 herein and the Court below by order dated 4.6.2007 dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff. Despite notice, the respondents 2 to 5 did not choose to appear. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. As could be seen, the sole defendant died on 15.10.2004. As the plaintiff failed to take steps to bring the legal representatives on record within the prescribed time, the suit stood abated on 14.1.2005. It is true that there was a delay of 258 days in filing the petition for setting aside the abatement. It was explained in the affidavit initially filed in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that in spite of his best efforts the particulars of the legal representatives could not be traced by the plaintiff. However in the subsequent application there was no explanation for the delay and therefore the Court below had dismissed the application. Though the Court below cannot be said to have committed any error in exercise of jurisdiction conferred under law, having regard to the settled law that the Courts shall be liberal in considering the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice it would have been appropriate to condone the delay on terms. In my considered opinion the matter warrants such liberal approach so as to advance substantial justice to the parties by deciding the matter on merits. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 4.6.2007 is hereby set aside and I.A.No.712 of 2005 is allowed subject to depositing costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the credit of O.S.No310 of 2004 within a period of four weeks from today. On deposit of the said costs, the other applications i.e., application for setting aside the abatement and the application to bring the legal representatives on record shall be heard and decided on merits following due process of law. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 07.06.2010 gbs