THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.2792 and 3876 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions arise out of S.R.O.P.No.2 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Ongole. The petitioner filed the S.R.O.P. against the respondents 1 to 5 herein. The trial Court disposed of the same on 17.08.2009 with certain directions. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondents 1 to 4 filed C.R.P.No.4431 of 2009 and respondents 6 to 8, as third parties, filed CR.P.No.4510 of 2009. This Court allowed the revisions, through a common order, dated 19.07.2010 setting aside the order, dated 17.08.2009 passed in S.R.O.P.No.2 of 2007 and remanding the matter for fresh disposal of the appeal. A direction was issued to the effect that the petitioner herein shall implead respondents 6 to 8 herein as parties to the S.R.O.P. Five weeks time was granted for that purpose. The petitioner filed an interlocutory application being C.F.R.No.6553 of 2010 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. with a prayer to implead respondents 6 to 8 as parties to the S.R.O.P. However, it was presented after expiry of five weeks. The trial Court returned the application. Thereafter, the petitioner got extension of time by another five weeks by this Court, through order, dated 23.12.2010. After this, she re-presented the C.F.R. By that time, there was a delay of 104 days. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.No.388 of 2010 under Section 148 read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to condone the delay of 104 days in re-presentation. The respondents opposed the application. The trial Court dismissed I.A.No.388 of 2011, through order, dated 06.07.2011. As a result, the C.F.R. also stood dismissed. Hence, these revisions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner states that she could not file the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading respondents 6 to 8 herein within time, since the copy of the order of this Court was furnished only after expiry of five weeks. The trial Court naturally returned the application, on the ground that it was filed beyond the period stipulated by this Court. With the extension of time, by this Court, the application stood filed within time. The delay in representation was occasioned in the process of seeking extension of time from this Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the civil revision petitions are allowed and the orders under revisions are set aside. As a result, the delay in representation is condoned. The C.F.R. shall be numbered and the same shall be dealt with on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 25.11.2011 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.2792 and 3876 of 2011 Date: 25.11.2011 JSU