THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2911 of 1999 JUDGMENT: Appellants 1 and 3 and deceased appellant No.2 filed O.s.No.126 of 1987 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Narsapur, against the respondents, for the relief of recovery of possession together with past and future profits. During the pendency of the suit, the 2nd plaintiff viz., Polisetti Suryakantham died. The appellants herein filed an application to set aside the abatement and to bring appellants 4 to 9 herein as legal representatives of deceased-2nd plaintiff. Since there was delay of 110 days in filing that application, they filed I.A.No.662 of 1994, to condone the delay. Through its order, dated 31.10.1996, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this C.M.A. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the appellants. Though notices were sent to respondents 1 to 6 to the same address as furnished in the suit, they were returned unserved. On verification by the Registry with the trial Court, it emerged that the suit is still pending. Having regard to the limited scope of this C.M.A., it is felt that it is not necessary to issue further notices to the respondents. The plaintiffs are sisters. They filed the suit through a power of attorney, by name, one Mr.Pattabhi Ramaiah, who is none other than the son of the deceased-2nd plaintiff. The said lady is said to have died on 06.01.1994. Appellants 1 to 3 were depending upon the G.P.A. It is only when they found that proper steps were not taken, they swung into action. Obviously, because the family was bereaved, steps could not be taken. The delay was not enormous. It is not as if the respondents are suffered any detriment. Further, cause of action in the suit is not so indivisible, as to result in automatic dismissal of the entire suit. For one reason or the other, the suit itself was pending for the past several years. The C.M.A. is accordingly allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.662 of 1994 is allowed and the delay is condoned. To avoid further complications, it is directed that the abatement that has resulted, on account of the death of 2nd plaintiff in the suit, is set aside and appellants 4 to 9 herein are added as legal representatives of the deceased-2nd plaintiff. The trial Court shall proceed with the suit on priority basis. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:26.08.2009. GJ