THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NOs.2666 and 3212 OF 2006 17-06-2010 Between: Smt.Shobha Kamegoankar d/o Late Narayana Rao ..petitioner Vs. D.Somayajulu and others …Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NOs.2666 and 3212 OF 2006 ORAL COMMON ORDER The 1st defendant in O.S.No.286 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada is the revision petitioner. The suit was for recovery of agricultural property of an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.86 of Kantepudi Village, Nandivada Mandal of Krishna District. The case of the plaintiff was that she purchased the suit schedule property from the defendant Nos.2 to 5 under a registered sale deed of 1995. The suit was instituted on 01-05-2002 and the suit summons on the 5th defendant were returned as the said person died on 10-06-1998. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed two applications i.e., I.A.No.2592 and 2593 of 2002. I.A.No.2592 of 2002 was filed to condone the specified delay in bringing the legal representatives of 5th defendant on record; I.A.No.2593 of 2002 was an application under Order XXII, Rule 9 CPC to set aside the abatement of the suit on account of the demise of the 5th defendant. By the orders of the court below impugned in these revisions both the applications were allowed, delay was condoned and the abatement set aside. The singular ground urged by Sri J.Prabhakar, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the suit was instituted against a dead person (D-5), the same is not maintainable and no application could have been filed to set aside the abatement on condonation of delay. In view of the decision of a learned single judge of this Court i n Rasetty Rajyalakshmamma and others Vs. Rajmuru Kannaiah([1]) and the earlier decision of Supreme Court in Karuppaswamy and others Vs. C.Ramamurthy([2]) this contention does not commend acceptance. As the plaintiff was unaware of the demise of the 5th defendant, he filed the suit impleading D-5. The death of D-5 came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only when the suit summons were returned. On the ground that D-5 had died, expeditiously thereafter applications were filed by the Plaintiff for condonatin of the delay and for setting aside the order of abatement. On the aforesaid analysis, this court discerns no ground for interference. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 17th JUNE 2010 TSNR [1] AIR 1978 AP 279 [2] AIR 1973 SC 2324