1. This Revision is filed challenging the order dt.29.12.2005 in IA.No.493 of 2003 in OS.No.2 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the Sr. Civil Judge, Medak, Medak District.

2. The petitioners are the legal representatives of one Siddiramulu, who was the plaintiff in the above suit. He filed the said suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties and for recovery of possession of his half share therein. Siddiramulu died pending suit and his wife and children were brought on record. A preliminary decree of partition was passed in the suit on 28.09.1984.

3. Challenging the said decree, Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein filed AS.No.25 of 1984 before the District Judge, Medak. The said appeal was dismissed on 13.11.1987.

4. The 3rd respondent herein filed SA.No.174 of 1998 in this Court challenging the same. On 18.09.2000 the said Second Appeal was also dismissed.

5. It appears that one Reddi Lachaiah, who is the 4th respondent/4th defendant in the suit, died in the year 2001 leaving behind respondent Nos.17 and 18 as his legal heirs. Likewise, Raja Timmaiah, the 5th respondent/5th defendant also died in 1999 leaving behind the 16th respondent as his legal heir. The 6th respondent/6th defendant in the suit, also died leaving behind the 14th respondent as his legal heir.

6. The petitioners filed I.A.493/2003 under Order XX Rule 18 CPC on 07.08.2003 for appointment of a Commissioner for submitting a report so that a final decree can be passed in the suit. Since the respondent nos. 4-6 had died and their legal representatives would also have to be given notice in the final decree petition I.A.493/2003, they also sought for condonation of delay of 1053 days in bringing their legal representatives on record, to set aside the abatement caused by their death and to bring them on record as legal representatives of the deceased respondent nos. 4-6/defendant nos. 4-6. In the array of parties, all the legal representatives of respondents 4-6 were also indicated.

7. The 3rd respondent filed a counter opposing the said application contending that the application is vague and vexatious and there is no specific prayer in the petition; that specific dates of the death of the deceased were not given; that the petitioners ought to explain the delay in respect of the each of the deceased; they also ought to file separate petitions in respect of each of the respondent no.s4-6, for condonation of delay in seeking to set aside abatement, to set aside abatement and to bring on record the legal representatives. It is also stated that pending Second Appeal before the High Court, the death of these persons was not reported, and therefore, the 3rd respondent could not take steps to bring them on record in the Second Appeal which she had filed.

8. By order dt.29.12.2005, the Court below dismissed the said I.A. In the said order, the trial court noted that the petitioner did not add the legal representatives of the deceased in SA.No.174 of 1998 which had been disposed of on 18.09.2000; that the petitioners did not give even the date of the deaths of the deceased respondents; the delay is not properly explained; and there were latches on the part of the petitioners.

9. Aggrieved thereby, the present Revision is filed.

10. Heard the counsel for petitioners and the counsel for 3rd respondent.

11. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6 have died. Respondent Nos.7, 11 and 14 refused to receive the notices sent by Court and therefore, they are deemed to be served. Respondent Nos.8 to 10 and 17 were served but none appears on their behalf.

12. The counsel for the petitioners contended that the reasoning of the Trial Court is perverse; when SA.No.174 of 1998 was filed in this court by 3rd respondent/3rd defendant, the trial court ought not have blamed the petitioners for not bringing to the notice of this Court, the death of these persons or for not bringing their legal representatives on record in the Second Appeal; that under Order XXII Rule 10A of CPC, it was incumbent