THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRP No.4666 of 2009 Date:4.12.2009 Between: Smt Devalla Krishnaveni, Kovvur, West Godavari District. And Meka Krishna (died) Maddipatla Rama Rao, Samisragudem, West Godavari District and others. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRP No.4666 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 22.1.2009 passed in I.A.No.469 of 2004 in A.S.No.27 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, W.G.District, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1675 days in filing the petition under Order 22, Rule 9 (2) CPC. Back ground facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this Civil Revision Petition by the petitioners are:- Meka Krishna-1st respondent filed a suit against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein for specific performance of the sale agreement and the suit ended in decree on 31.12.1996. The petitioner, who figured as D-3 in the suit, filed A.S.No.20 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Kovvur. Pending the appeal, the 1st respondent/plaintiff died on 4.4.1998 and accordingly, a memo came to be filed on 24.2.2004. The petitioner/appellant filed I.A.No.469 of 2004 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1675 days in filing the petition under Order XXII Rule 9 (2) CPC. None of the respondents resisted the application filed by the petitioner/appellant. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioner, proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the petitioner/appellant has not explained the delay of 1675 of days in filing the petition to bring the legal representatives of R1 on record, by order dated 22.1.2009. The said order impugned is assailed in this revision. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 26.10.2009. Despite notice being served on the respondents 5 & 6, they did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through the counsel. Notice to the respondents 2 to 4 and 7 & 8 stated to be not necessary parties. Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant and perused the order impugned in the revision. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application soon after coming to know the death of the 1st respondent/plaintiff and therefore, there are no latches on the part of the petitioner in making the application to set aside the abatement and also to condone the delay of 1675 of days. In support of his contention, learned counsel refers Order 22 Rule 4 (5), which reads as hereunder:- “Where— (a) the plaintiff was ignorant of the death of a defendant, and could not, for that reason, make an application for the substitution of the legal representative of the defendant under this rule within the period specified in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), and the suit has, in consequence, abated, and (b) the plaintiff applies after the expiry of the period specified therefore in the Limitation Act, 963 (36 9of 1963), for setting aside the abatement and also for the admission of that application under Section 5 of that Act on the ground that he had, by reason of such ignorance, sufficient cause for not making the application within the period specified in the said Act.” The appellant-petitioner has specifically pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that he came to know the death of the plaintiff/1st respondent on 21.2.2004 and accordingly, the memo came to be filed in Court and immediately, he field a petition to set aside the abatement along with the delay condonation petition. Indeed R1/plaintiff was represented by a counsel and he did not report the death of the 1st respondent till 21.2.2004. Therefore, the petitioner appellant cannot be found fault. It cannot be said that there are latches on the part of the petitioner/appellant in filing the application to set aside the dismissal for default order. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed at the admission stage setting aside the order passed in A.S.No.27 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, W.G.District and consequently, the I.A.No.469 of 2004 stands allowed. No costs. ___________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy Date:4.12.2009 mrb