HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P. No. 1359 of 2006 ORDER: This revision has been directed against the order dated 04.01.2006 passed in IA No.310 of 2003 in OS No.1 of 1994 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapur. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The revision petitioners herein are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff in OS No.1 of 1994. The original plaintiff in the suit died on 2.4.2002. Subsequently, in the above suit, the revision petitioners herein filed an application in IA No.310 of 2003 to condone the delay in filing the petitions under O-XXII R-9(2) and under O-XXII R-3 of C.P.C. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Markapur having heard both sides, by the impugned order dismissed the above application observing that The present application u/Sec.5 of the Limitation Act is not maintainable in law since the revision petitioners have not taken any steps in setting aside the default orders passed in IA no,.901 of 2002 dated 18.12.2002. Assailing the said order, the present revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioners herein are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff in the suit and that the suit was filed for partition of the suit schedule property and that the lower court ought not to have dismissed the application on technicalities. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the impugned order is passed in accordance with law and that it does not warrant any interference of this court and prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 6. The only point for consideration in this revision is that whether the impugned order is sustainable in law or not ? 7. I have perused the material placed on record as well as the impugned order. 8. As seen from the impugned order, previously the revision petitioners filed IA No.901 of 2002 u/Sec.151 CPC and the court below ordered notices to the other side and the said petion was dismissed for efault on 18.2.2002. Without taking steps to restore the order IA No.901 of 2002 dated 18.12.2002 and also in unnumbered IAs filed under O-XXII R-3 and under O-22 R-9(2) of CPC, the revision petitioners filed the present application in IA No.310 of 2003 seeking condonation of delay in iling fresh applications to bring the L.Rs on record. 9. Admittedly, the revision petitioners have filed applications under O-22 R-3 and O-9(2) CPC and since IA No.901 of 2002 was dismissed, consequently the other applications were also dismissed. 10. It is the case of the respondent that the revision petitioners herein have not taken any steps to restore those applications and that instead of following the procedure under law, they have filed the fresh application u/Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act in IA No.310 of 2003 to condone the delay of 193 days in filing the above applications to come on record as legal representatives of the original plaintiff in the suit. 11. Suffice to say that in such applications, the courts below should be liberal. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, I deem it appropriate to give an opportunity to the revision petitioners to file a fresh application to restore the order dated 18.12.2002 passed in IA No.901 of 2002 and on such application, the lower court is directed to consider the same liberally. 13. With the above observations, the revision petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J Dt. 08-04-2011 Mjl/*