THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2838 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is preferred against the orders of the I Additional District Judge, Anantapur in I.A. No.131 of 2011 in O.S. No.27 of 2007 dated 17.06.2011. I.A. No.131 of 2011 is a petition filed, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 314 days in filling the petition to set aside the abatement order. The 3rd defendant in the suit died on 08.09.2009, leaving behind her respondents 7 to 9 as legal heirs. It is the case of the petitioner before the Court below, (1st respondent herein), that he came to know about her death only when a memo was filed to implead the respondents 7 to 9 in the I.A. as legal heirs, and to make consequential amendments. An application was also filed to set aside the order of abatement. The Court below noted that a memo was filed by the respondents on 06.02.2010 officially informing the Court about the death of the 3rd defendant, and also mentioning details of her legal heirs; within ten days thereafter, a petition was filed to set aside the abatement; and it could, therefore, not be said that there was any delay in filing the petition. Sri Vijayabhaskar Moola, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, since the 1st respondent herein was aware of the death of the 3rd defendant and was cross-examined on 10.11.2009, the inordinate delay of 314 days in filing the application ought not to have been condoned by the Court below. The petitioner herein has computed 314 days of delay from the date of the death, of the deceased 3rd defendant on 08.09.2009, till the petition was filed on 16.02.2010. Even if it were to be presumed that the death of the 3rd defendant was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent when the petitioner cross-examined him on 10.11.2009, the fact remains that, it is only on a memo being filed in the Court below on 06.02.2010 by the Counsel for the petitioner herein informing about the death of the 3rd defendant and giving details of the legal heirs, the 1st respondent was required to take steps to bring the legal heirs on record. It is evident from the order of the Court below that, within ten days of filing the memo, the petition was filed on 16.02.2010. The order of the Court below does not suffer from any legal infirmity necessitating interference in revision proceedings. The C.R.P. fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 29 .07.2011 MRKR