HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No. 960 of 2008 DATED: 02.09.2011 Between: Smt.Gullipalli Vijayasree .. Petitioner And Smt. Rednam Satyavathi (died) and three others .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the 2nd plaintiff against the dismissal of her application for condonation of delay of 531 days in representing the application for setting aside the abatement order and to implead the 3rd defendant as legal representatives of the deceased-1st respondent (original 1st defendant). Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The petitioner stated in the affidavit before the trial Court that as soon as the defendants’ counsel filed a Memo dated 08.08.2005 informing the death of the 1st defendant on 13.12.2004 and about the legal representatives i.e. the two sons of the deceased-1st defendant along with the details, on the very next day, the petitioner filed an application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased. That application was returned with some office objections and is said to have been mixed up with the other bundles and could not be represented within time. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A. No. 1728 of 2007 seeking condonation of 531 days in representing the application. The trial Court, while applying the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the Rule of strict construction, held that the cause shown by the plaintiffs is wholly unsatisfactory and vague and dismissed the application vide order 20.02.2008. Questioning this order, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the 2nd plaintiff. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner made appropriate application to bring on record the legal representatives immediately on receiving the information about the death of the deceased-1st defendant. That itself shows that there is no negligence or deliberate acts on the part of the plaintiffs to delay the suit. The trial Court should have appreciated the aforesaid circumstances while examining the explanation submitted by the petitioner for the delay in representing the matter. Paragraph 5 of the affidavit states that the returned application was mixed up with other bundle and in spite of best efforts it could not be traced to enable the petitioner to represent it. The trial Court ought to have appreciated that the petitioner does not gain any advantage by not resubmitting the application which is already filed within time and it is only circumstantial reasons which resulted in the delay. The trial Court also overlooked the fact that one of the legal representatives of the 1st respondent-deceased is already on record as the 2nd defendant. Thereby, the estate of the 1st defendant is duly represented, and strictly speaking, there is neither any abetment of the suit nor any necessity of the petitioner to bring any legal representative on record, but as the petitioner made application to bring on record the other son of the deceased-1st defendant, there is no reason as to why the trial Court could not have viewed the matter liberally. For this reason also, the impugned order is not sustainable. I am, therefore, inclined to set aside the impugned order and allow I.A. No. 1728 of 2007 to enable the petitioner to bring on record the remaining legal representative of the deceased-1st respondent and proceed with the suit. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and consequently I.A. No.1728 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam is allowed. No order as to costs. _______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 02.09.2011 bcj