THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.258 of 2011 Date:01.11.2011 Between: Angati Appa Rao and others. ..... Petitioners/defendants . AND Angati Pydiah .....Respondent/plaintiff. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.258 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners are defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.412 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. 2. The plaintiff who is the son of the 1st defendant filed the suit for partition. Summonses were served upon the defendants on 24-06-2006. The 2nd defendant is the daughter of the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant is the son of the 2nd defendant and the grand son of the 1st defendant. 3. It is the case of the defendants that they engaged one Sri Panigrahi as an advocate. They allegedly executed Vakalat and instructed Sri Panigrahi to file the Vakalat and contest the case on their behalf. 4. Sri Panigrahi did not file the vakalat on behalf of the defendants. Consequently, on 29-08-2006, the defendants were set exparte and exparte decree was passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. As it was a suit for partition, the plaintiff thereafter filed I.A.No.1136 of 2008 for passing of final decree. Notices were served upon defendants 1 to 3 in the final decree proceedings. The defendants then came to know that Vakalat was not filed on their behalf and that they were set exparte by the trial Court. The defendants consequently filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. In the process, there was a delay of 1045 days. To condone the same, the defendants filed I.A.No.54 of 2010 before the trial Court. The learned trial Judge through an elaborate order dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is laid. 5. Notice issued to the sole respondent, who is the plaintiff, was refused. It therefore is treated that the plaintiff had sufficient notice. 6. The delay certainly is abnormal. It is nearly three years. However, it is the case of the defendants that they reacted on receipt of summonses by engaging a counsel and that the said counsel did not file the vakaalt as instructed by the defendants. The mistake, if any, would appear to be on the part of the counsel whom the defendants sought to engage. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the limitation petition. The trial Court was not justified in refusing to condone the delay. 7. This revision is accordingly allowed. The delay in filing Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is condoned. The trial Court shall proceed with the main application after registering the same, if it is otherwise in order. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Date:01.11.2011. mrb