THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.610 of 2010 ORDER: Respondents 1 to 12 herein (for short “the plaintiffs’) filed O.S.No.15610 of 2003 in the Court of VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against respondents 13 to 16, for the relief of cancellation of a sale deed executed by respondents 15 to 16 in favour of the deceased-13th respondent (1st defendant). The petitioner, however, came to know that the 1st defendant died on 23-12-2004. A memo was filed on 20-01-2005 to that effect. Thereupon, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1289 of 2005, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (for short ‘the Act’), to bring the legal representatives on record. That application was dismissed for default on 28-02-2006, and the suit was also dismissed for default. I.A.No.168 of 2008 was filed under Section 5 of the Act with a prayer to condone the delay in presentation of an application to restore the suit. I.A.No.1052 of 2006 was filed for restoration of I.A.No.1289 of 2005. That application was dismissed on 13-09-2006. With a view to pursue the I.A.No.168 of 2008, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.544 of 2008, under Order XXII Rule 4 C.P.C., with a prayer to permit them to bring the petitioner herein as legal representative of the deceased-1st defendant. The I.A. was allowed through order dated 25-11-2009. Hence, this C.R.P. Heard Sri M. Basith Ali Yavar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the plaintiffs. One lapse on the part of the plaintiffs has cost them a lot, and fairly large number of applications had to be filed for one reason or the other. Their failure to take timely action to file application to bring the legal representatives of the 1st defendant led to several consequences. Bereft of unnecessary details, the stage at present is that I.A.No.168 of 2008, filed under Section 5 of the Act, for condonation of delay in presentation of the application for restoration of the suit, has to be pursued. It is only when the suit is restored, that the other steps would become necessary. Even to pursue that application, it becomes necessary to bring the legal representatives of the deceased, 1st defendant on record. I.A.No.554 of 2008 was filed in that context. Though the petitioner made a prayer, that the legal representatives must be brought on record in the suit also, that becomes necessary, if only the suit is restored. The order passed by the trial Court needs to be modified to the extent that I.A.No.544 of 2008 shall be confined to the one, of bringing the legal representatives of the 1st defendant only, for the limited purpose of enabling the plaintiffs to pursue I.A.No.168 of 2008. Hence, the C.R.P. is allowed in part, directing that the order passed in I.A.No.544 of 2008 shall be limited to the extent of enabling the plaintiffs, i.e. respondents 1 to 12 herein, to pursue I.A.No.168 of 2008. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.25-08-2010. KO