THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3313 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioners filed O.S.No.1212 of 2002 in the Court of the XI Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The suit was dismissed for default on 31.12.2003. Thereupon, the petitioners filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the order, dated 31.12.2003, and to restore the suit to file. Since there was a delay of 160 days in presenting the application, they filed I.A.No.259 of 2004 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The I.A. was dismissed on 23.02.2005. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri Basith Ali Yavar, learned counsel for the petitioners. On the notices sent to the respondents, it was endorsed “no such persons“. It is stated that the parties are closely related and though the notices were sent to the places of residence, the said endorsements were managed with the postal authorities. This Court is of the view that the notices can be deemed to have been served. The delay involved in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. was 160 days. It was mentioned that the first petitioner, who was looking after the litigation, has fallen ill at the relevant point of time. The trial Court took the view that even if the first petitioner has fallen ill, the second petitioner ought to have pursued the matter. The fact that the second petitioner is a parda nashin lady and was depending upon her brother, the first petitioner, was not at all taken into account. The trial Court made some discussion on merits also. It emerges that within a short time after the suit was filed, it was taken up for trial and as usual, dates were given from time to time. It is, no doubt, true that it was directed to be listed on 31.12.2003 for commencement of evidence, however, on that day, the petitioners filed an application seeking adjournment. The I.A. was dismissed and on the same day, the suit was taken up and dismissed for default. The hyper-technical approach adopted by the trial Court cannot be countenanced. It was not as if the suit was pending for years and decades and that there was total indifference on the part of the petitioners. The interest evinced by them is evident from the fact that an application seeking adjournment was filed. Further, in a suit for partition, the attempt should be to ascertain whether there exists any joint properties and the parties cannot be treated as pure adversaries. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The delay is condoned and the trial Court shall take up the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C., as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:05.10.2009 kdl