THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.3883 AND 4012 OF 2009 DATED:26-10- 2010. CRP 3883 OF 2009 Between 1.Yerra Vijayalakshmi and another … Petitioners-D1 and D2 And 1.Gobbaka Varalakshmi and another …Respondents-D3 and D4 CRP 4012 OF 2009 Between 1.Yerra Vijayalakshmi and another … Petitioners-D1 and D2 And 1.Yerra Neelamma and two others …Respondents-Plaintiff and D3 and D4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.3883 AND 4012 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: CRP 3883 of 2009 is filed against the order, dated 15-07-2009, in I.A.No.1983 of 2007 in I.A.No.1835 of 2006 in O.S.No.11 of 1999, on the file of the District Judge, Srikakulam, whereunder and whereby the application filed under order I Rule 10 CPC to add the petitioners-defendants 3 and 4 as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff was allowed. 2. CRP 4012 of 2009 is filed against the order, dated 15-07-2009, in I.A.No.1835 of 2006 in O.S.No.11 of 1999, on the file of the District Judge, Srikakulam, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under order IX Rule 9 CPC to set aside the dismissal order, dated 29-06-2006, was allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and also the application to set aside the abatement to bring the legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff as contemplated under Order XXII Rule 1 CPC were filed and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned orders. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff, that the trial Court rightly allowed the application filed to transpose the defendants 3 and 4 as plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the suit and also the application filed to set aside the dismissal order, dated 29-06-2006, that necessary application will be filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, if there is any delay and hence he prays to dismiss the revisions. 5. The suit was dismissed for default on 29-06-2006. Thereafter, the application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC was filed to set aside the dismissal order by the deceased sole plaintiff while she was alive i.e., I.A.No.1835 of 2005. When the said application was pending, the petitioner-plaintiff died. Then the application in I.A.No.1983 of 2007 was filed to transpose defendants 3 and 4 as plaintiffs 2 and 3 as they are legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff. Unless they come on record, the question of filing an application under Order XXII Rule 1 CPC to set aside the abatement does not arise in view of the fact that they are shown as defendants in the suit. The defendants cannot file an application to set aside the order of dismissal of the suit for default unless they are transposed as plaintiffs in the suit. Therefore, the trial Court rightly allowed the application filed to transpose D3 and D4 as plaintiffs and also the application filed to set aside the dismissal order and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED:26.10.2010 Hsd