IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.1359 of 2009 Between: Smt. D. Venkatamma .. Revision Petitioner AND Sri M. Raghunandan and another .. Respondents Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 22-01-2009 in I.A. No.1464 of 2008 in O.S. No.496 of 2003 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R. Mahender Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, Advocate for the 1st respondent and of Sri M. Pratap Singh, Advocate for the 2nd respondent, the Court made the following: ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, dated 22-01-2009 in I.A. No.1464 of 2008 in O.S. No.496 of 2003. The petition before the trial Court was filed to set aside the abatement, which was recorded on 20-01-2005 in this suit on the death of the mother of the petitioner on 24-05-2004. The petitioner claimed that due to mental stress on the death of his mother, he could not inform his counsel to take steps to bring him on record though the right to sue survives and therefore, he sought for setting aside the abatement order after condoning the delay of 146 days. The request was opposed contending that the petitioner obtained the death certificate of his mother soon after her death and attended his duties in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited and the alleged mental stress is not correct. The petitioner was negligent in not informing his counsel and not taking steps and consequently, the abatement cannot be set aside, more so when the petition filed by the 1st defendant to record abatement was allowed after giving notice to the counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order was passed by the trial Court after considering the above rival contentions and the trial Court felt that the petitioner had knowledge of the suit throughout as the general power of attorney holder of his mother and when the counsel for the plaintiff received notice of the petition to record abatement and failed to file counter or represent on behalf of the plaintiff or the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be considered to have shown any sufficient cause for considering the application under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court felt that existence of such sufficient cause is pre-requisite for considering any such request and the trial Court referring to the precedents on the aspect concluded that the petitioner was positively negligent and hence, dismissed the petition without costs. The petitioner, therefore, came up with this revision petition contending that the petitioner could not inform his counsel not only due to mental stress but also due to lack of legal knowledge and the Court should not have been over strict in the matter, more so when it allowed I.A. No.1168 of 2005 under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Heard Sri P. Atchutam Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri R. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty and Sri M. Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 respectively. The death of the mother subjecting the son to mental stress is a natural phenomenon, which could not have been rejected as unreal or artificial and when the petition filed in I.A. No.1168 of 2005 for condonation of delay in filing a petition to set aside the abatement for the same reason was allowed notwithstanding the objection by the respondents, different considerations could not have governed the decision in this application also in the light of the principle laid down in Chivuluru Michal v. Yadla Sambasiva Rao[1], wherein also a delay condonation petition was allowed, but a petition to set aside ex parte decree was dismissed on the same set of facts. The learned Judge considered the same to be an order without application of mind mechanically passed, which cannot be considered just and equitable. It should be noted that the fact that the suit was recorded as abated on a positive application of the respondents, was specifically brought to notice of the Court in I.A. No.1168 of 2005, but was still not accepted as a ground which was tenable and how suddenly the same acquired respectability and acceptability for rejecting this petition, becomes inexplicable. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner about the cause for delay need not and cannot be rejected and the petition ought to have been allowed on appropriate terms to compensate the respondents of any inconvenience caused due to the delay, as the object of the Court should be to arrive at the truth on merits but not to punish the parties for any technical lapses. A liberal approach in such matters was, hence, consistently advised by precedents. Therefore, the civil revision petition and I.A. No.1464 of 2008 in O.S. No.496 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Sangareddy will be allowed on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each to respondents 1 and 2 through their counsel on or before 06-11-2009. In default, the civil revision petition shall stand dismissed. Call on 06-11-2009. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 30-10-2009 Svv [1] 2007 (5) ALT 38