THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.325 OF 2011 & 348 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.325 of 2011: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 10.12.2010, in I.A.No.584 of 2010 in I.A.No.45 of 2007 in O.S.No.67 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, whereunder and whereby, the application, filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, “the Act”), to condone the delay of 559 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement order, dated 25.02.2009, passed in I.A.No.45 of 2007, was dismissed on the ground that no sufficient reason is given to condone the delay. 2. Heard. 3. The Suit is filed for specific performance of contract basing on the agreement of sale said to have been executed by the respondent/defendant in favour of petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1. During the pendency of the Suit, petitioner No.1 filed I.A.No.45 of 2007, under Order I Rule 10 (2) and under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) to bring one Rama Lakshmamma, who said to have purchased the property in question in the Suit, on record. During pendency of the Suit as well as the said I.A., petitioner No.1 died and his legal heirs, petitioner Nos.2 to 6, were impleaded as parties in the Suit, as per the orders in I.A.No.16 of 2001, dated 20.03.2009. Though petitioner Nos.2 to 6 were aware of pendency of I.A.No.45 of 2007, they did not choose to take steps to implead them as parties in I.A.No.45 of 2007 and therefore, I.A.No.45 of 2007 was dismissed as abated. When the Suit has come up for cross-examination of PW.1, I.A.No.584 of 2010 has been filed, which was dismissed vide the impugned order. 4. The word ‘sufficient cause’ is not defined under Section 5 of the Act. But, it must mean a cause, which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the said provision. If a person is prevented by sufficient reason or cause from approaching the Court, then it can be said to be a sufficient ground to condone the delay. 5. The reason given in the petition is that though petitioner Nos.2 to 6 were impleaded as parties to the main Suit, due to oversight they could not file a petition in I.A.No.45 of 2007, to implead them as parties. When petitioner Nos.2 to 6 have already come on record in the main Suit, the trial Court ought to have condoned the delay. It is only a mistake on the part of the learned counsel in not filing appropriate petition in I.A.No.45 of 2007 to implead petitioner Nos.2 to 6 as parties. Hence, the reason for delay can be said to be satisfactorily explained and the delay can be condoned. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 10.12.2010, in I.A.No.584 of 2010 in I.A.No.45 of 2007 in O.S.No.67 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. Consequently, I.A.No.584 of 2010 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. C.R.P.No.348 of 2011: 7. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 10.12.2010, in I.A.No.585 of 2010 in I.A.No.45 of 2007 in O.S.No.67 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order XXII Rules 3 and 9, Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 C.P.C., to set aside the abatement order, dated 25.02.2009, passed in I.A.No.45 of 2007, and add petitioner Nos.2 to 6 as parties in I.A.No.45 of 2007, was dismissed. 8. Heard. 9. Today, this Court allowed C.R.P.No.325 of 2011, condoning the delay in filing the petition to set aside the abatement order passed in I.A.No.45 of 2007. This petition is filed to set aside the abatement order passed in the said I.A. Admittedly, petitioner Nos.2 to 6 were impleaded as plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 in the main Suit. So, they have to be impleaded as petitioner Nos.2 to 6 in I.A.No.45 of 2007. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is also allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 10.12.2010, passed in I.A.No.585 of 2010 in I.A.No.45 of 2007 in O.S.No.67 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. Consequently, I.A.No.585 of 2010 is allowed and petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are permitted to be impleaded as petitioner Nos.2 to 6 in I.A.No.45 of 2007 in O.S.No.67 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 23, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.325 OF 2011 & 348 OF 2011 C.R.P.No.325 of 2011: Between: Nekkanti Kesava Rao (died) and others .....PETITIONERS AND Obulam Ramchandra Reddy ....RESPONDENT C.R.P.No.348 of 2011: Between: Nekkanti Kesava Rao (died) and others .....PETITIONERS AND Obulam Ramchandra Reddy ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.325 OF 2011 & 348 OF 2011 June 23, 2011