HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR C.R.P.No.11 OF 2007 ORDER : The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in C.F.R.No.4221 of 2005 in an unnumbered Interlocutory Application in A.S.No.32 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali dated 15.02.2006. The revision petitioner along with his mother filed O.S.No.318 of 1986 on the file of the 1st Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali. The suit was dismissed. It was a suit for declaration of the joint right of the plaintiffs in PQQ1RS lane along with the defendants. The plaintiffs also sought for a mandatory injunction for the removal of the gravel store by the 1st defendant in the alleged joint lane. When the suit was dismissed, the plaintiffs preferred A.S.No.32 of 1996 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tenali. While the appeal was pending before the first appellate Court, the 2nd plaintiff passed away. The legal representatives of the 2nd plaintiff did not immediately prefer any application under Order 22, Rule 3 of the C.P.C. for impleading them as the legal representatives of the deceased 2nd plaintiff. Consequently, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was laid to condone the delay of 672 days in filing application to implead the legal representatives of the 2nd plaintiff. Through orders, the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali dismissed the said application. The legal representatives of the 2nd plaintiff consequently preferred C.R.P.No.4124 of 2002 impugning the orders of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali in rejecting to condone the delay in filing application to implead the legal representatives of the 2nd plaintiff. C.R.P.No.4124 of 2002 however, was also dismissed on 14.10.2004. Later, the first appellate Court dismissed A.S.No.32 of 1996 on 13.04.2005. It was a case of dismissed for default. The 1st plaintiff preferred a petition in C.F.R.No.4221 of 2005 for the restoration of A.S.No.32 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. Through the impugned order, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali dismissed C.F.R.No.4221 of 2005. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is laid. The point for consideration is whether the C.F.R.No.4221 of 2005 deserves to be allowed and A.S.No.32 of 1996 deserves to be restored to file? The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the case of the revision petitioner, who is the 1st plaintiff and the first appellant in A.S.No.32 of 1996 is independent of the claim of his mother who was the 2nd plaintiff and the 2nd appellant. His claim is that even if the legal representatives of the 2nd plaintiff are not brought on record in the appeal, the appeal by the 1st plaintiff stands as an independent claim. He, therefore, seeks for the setting aside of the default order. Sri S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the sole defendant on the other hand contended that the sole ground on which the revision petitioner sought for the setting aside of the default order was that the revision was pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and that as the revision was already disposed of, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali was correct in dismissing the application to restore the appeal to file. As rightly submitted by Sri N.Sreerama Murthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/1st plaintiff, it is desirable to take a liberal view in matters relating to setting aside of the default orders. I consider that it would be just and reasonable to set aside the default order. At the same time, the appeal is very old. The appeal was laid in 1996. The defendant has been facing the trauma of legal proceedings right from 1986. It is necessary to put a quietus to the legal activity once and for all. I, therefore, consider that in the interests of justice, A.S.No.32 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali deserves to be restored with an embargo that the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali shall dispose of A.S.No.32 of 1996 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. A.S.No.32 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali is restored to file with an embargo that the revision petitioner/1st plaintiff shall report ready before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, whenever the case is posted for hearing. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali shall dispose of A.S.No.32 of 1996 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali shall be at liberty to dispose of A.S.No.32 of 1996, if the revision petitioner herein does not get ready to argue the matter before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. No costs. It is clarified that the appeal is restored to file so far as the 1st plaintiff is concerned only and not in respect of the legal representatives of the 2nd plaintiff. ____________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR 7th December 2010 PNV