THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2443 AND 2458 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners-proposed appellants filed these two revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the orders dated 29.03.2010 passed in I.A.Nos.1840 of 2009 and 76 of 2010 in A.S.Nos.102 and 103 of 2008 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in dismissing the petitions filed under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to bring the petitioners as legal representatives of the sole appellant in the two appeals, respectively. The Court below did not find favour with the request of the petitioners and dismissed the petitions only on the ground that even though delay has occurred in filing the said petitions, applications for delay condonation are not filed along with such petitions. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that the objection taken by the Court below against the petitioners for not filing delay condonation application is technically true. However, the fact remains that the petitioners are permitted to file delay condonation applications afresh, which would be a futile exercise apart from attribution of delay. Instead the Court below ought to have allowed the petitioners since the relief sought is mere formal one effecting substantive rights of the parties. In view of the above, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the orders dated 29.03.2010 passed in I.A.Nos.1840 of 2009 and 76 of 2010 in A.S.Nos.102 and 103 of 2008 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, are set aside. Further, I.A.Nos.1840 of 2009 and 76 of 2010 stand allowed. The Court below shall dispose of A.S.Nos.102 and 103 of 2008 within a period of three {3} months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 27th January 2011 RRB