THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4639 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision has been directed against the order dated 04.08.2009 in I.A.No.3132 of 2008 in O.S.No.729 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 345 days in filing petition to set aside the abatement order passed in the O.S.No.729 of 2002. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 26.10.2009. Despite notice being serviced on the respondent, she did not choose to enter appearance, either in person or through a counsel. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has not considered the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of application being I.A.No.3132 of 2008 and thereby, erred in dismissing the same. Learned counsel took me to para-6 of the affidavit, which reads as hereunder. “I submit to the Honourable Court that, due to our illiteracy we could not approach the Honourable Court in time for taking steps against the deceased-sole Plaintiff. Yesterday only we met our Advocate who informed the legal position to us. Hence, we are filing this application. There is no willful or wanton negligence on our part in not filing the accompanying petitions in time. In the interests of justice, we must be given an opportunity to proceed with the suit to determine our rights in the schedule property.” Background facts in nutshell leading to filing of the revision by the petitioners are:- Smt.Vanam Sattemma filed suit against Gopireddi Suramma, the respondent herein, for partition and separate possession and her share in the suit schedule property. It was the contention of Vanam Sattemma that the suit schedule property belongs to her mother and the same has been settled on herself and her sister, who is the respondent herein, by way of executing a registered Settlement Deed. Since the respondent was not coming forward for amicable partition, she choose to file O.S.No.729 of 2002 for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule property. Pending the suit, she died and consequently, the suit came to be dismissed as abated. Hence, the petitioners filed petition seeking restoration of the suit and also the petition being I.A.No.3132 of 2008 to condone the delay of 345 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement order. The petitioners specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that they came to know the order of abatement a day prior to moving their application. The trial Court has missed to notice the specific averment with regard to the date of knowledge of the abatement of suit as mentioned in para-6 of the affidavit and thereby, erred in recording a finding that the petitioners have not given satisfactory explanation for delay of 345 days in filing the petition seeking to set aside the order of abatement. Accordingly, this revision is allowed at the admission stage setting aside the order dated 04.08.2009 in I.A.No.3132 of 2008 in O.S.No.729 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur and consequently, I.A.No.3132 of 2008 stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 22nd January 2010 RRB