HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.4410 OF 2010 DATE: 10.12.2010 BETWEEN: Landa Sanyasappadu and others .. Petitioners And Landa Ramalakshmi ` .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.4410 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and none appears for the respondent, though served with notice. This civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the order dated 06.07.2010 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram in I.A.No.864 of 2010 in C.M.A.No.24 of 2005. Pending C.M.A.No.24 of 2005, the sole appellant –revision petitioner No.1 died on 05.05.2007 leaving behind the revision petitioners 2 and 3 as his legal heirs. The suit O.S.No.51 of 1998 was filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties. In C.M.A. No.24 of 2005, there occurred delay of 930 days in filing the legal representatives petition to bring the revision petitioners on record as legal representatives of the deceased/appellant and a petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay was dismissed stating that the delay was not properly explained and actually, the delay is more than one thousand days, but it was mentioned in the petition that it is of 930 days and also mainly on the ground that even according to the petitioners they came to know about the pending of the appeal on 25.03.2010 and the petition was filed on 13.10.2010 and there occurred delay of 20 days in filing the petition. The learned Court below appears to have indulged in meticulous examination regarding the delay and despite citing the decision of the Supreme Court in BHAG SINGH AND OTHERS v MAJOR DALJIT SINGH AND OTHERS[1] which is to the effect that the Courts should not take too strict and pedantic stand to condone the delay and dismissed the petition on the ground of negligent conduct of the petitioners. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that the explanation offered by the revision petitioners that they were not aware of the appeal filed by their father and they came to know about the same only in the year 2010 might be correct, since their father was the sole appellant in the appeal, it may so happened that they might not be aware of the said proceedings soonafter the death of their father. The suit is for partition and this Court is of the opinion that the revision petitioners shall be given opportunity to contest the appeal on merits. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 06.07.2010 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram in I.A.No.864 of 2010 in C.M.A.No.24 of 2005 is set aside and I.A.No.864 of 2010 is allowed on condition of the petitioners paying cots of Rs.200/- to the respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and filing memo in the lower court to that effect. Consequently, the civil revision petition is allowed. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 10.12.2010 Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.4410 OF 2010 DATE: 10.12.2010 [1] 1987 (1) L.S. 41 Vol.12