HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5868 of 2009 DATE:29.01.2010 Between: Ramkondaiah and two others … Petitioners And Saraswatamma … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5868 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 22.10.2009 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, in I.A.No.162 of 2009 in I.A.No.183 of 2007 in O.S.No.91 of 2005 dismissing the said application, filed under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC, seeking permission to amend I.A.No.183 of 2007, by an order dated 29.04.2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein instituted O.S.No.91 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, for declaration of title and also for recovery of possession of an extent of Ac.2.39 guntas in Sy.No.441/U9 of Peddajetram Shivara, Utkoor Mandal. As the petitioners herein did not file written statement in time, the court below set them exparte, and after recording the evidence of the respondent, decreed the suit, by judgment dated 16.03.2007. Having come to know of the same, the petitioners filed an application praying to set aside the exparte decree. As there was a delay of 51 days in filing the said application, they also filed I.A.No.183 of 2007 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but on account of mis- calculation, the number of days of delay was shown as “19” in the said application instead of “51”. On coming to know of the said fact, they filed I.A.No.162 of 2009 seeking amendment of I.A.No.183 of 2007. The court below, having heard both sides, dismissed the I.A.No.162 of 2009, by an order dated 22.10.2009. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present revision. 3. Though notice was served on the respondent, she has not chosen to put in her appearance before this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. There is no dispute with regard to the facts of the case. The petitioners, on their own, admitted that the delay in filing I.A.No.183 of 2007 is 51 days, but not 19 days, and only on account of mis-calculation, the said mistake occurred, and hence, it necessitated them to file I.A.No.162 of 2009. The conduct of the petitioners establishes the bonafides. Further, since the suit was filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of land, substantive rights of the parties are involved. Therefore, it is not desirable to dismiss I.A.No.162 of 2007 on the ground of technicalities and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 22.10.2009 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, in I.A.No.162 of 2009 in O.S.No.91 of 2005. Consequently, I.A.No.162 of 2009 is allowed, and the court below is directed to consider I.A.No.183 of 2007 and pass appropriate orders, at the earliest. No costs. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 29th January, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5868 of 2009 (Allowed) 29th January, 2010 CBS