ORDER :

A. Shankar Narayana, J.

1. All these four Civil Revision Petitions are preferred by the revision petitioners -respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - defendant Nos. 3 and 4, challenging the orders passed in I.A. Nos. 344, 345, 343 and 342 of 2015 in I.A. No. 510 of 1994 and I.A. No. 509 of 1994, which are filed for appointment of advocate commissioner to ascertain mesne profits and for passing final decree, respectively, before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District.

2. The revision petitioners herein are respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the aforesaid I.As and suit, while respondent No. 1 herein is the petitioner and plaintiff and respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein are respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5, respectively.

3. Before adverting to the grounds agitated and contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the counter arguments advanced by the learned counsel for contesting respondent No. 1, who is the petitioner in I.A. Nos. 509 and 510 of 1994 and plaintiff in O.S. No. 160 of 1984, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant facts.

(i) The revision petitioners herein are purchasers of the plaint schedule property, to which respondent No. 1 herein was not a party, who was admittedly minor on the date of their purchase. Respondent No. 1 herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 160 of 1984 through his mother as the next friend, seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share to him and mesne profits even.

(ii) That suit was filed against his father, who is arrayed as defendant No. 2, his paternal grand-father, who is arrayed as defendant No. 1, who is no more admittedly and respondent No. 4 herein is added as his legal representative, by orders, dated 21.04.2001, in I.A. No. 2165 of 1999 as defendant No. 5 and the revision petitioners herein were subsequently impleaded as defendant Nos. 3 and 4. It appears defendant No. 1 died during pendency of the final decree application and application for mesne profits.

(iii) The trial Court pronounced the judgment and passed the decree on 12.07.1991 to partition the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and allot one such share to respondent No. 1 herein. Thus, a preliminary decree was passed.

(iv) Questioning the preliminary, the revision petitioners herein, who are defendant Nos. 3 and 4, filed Appeal Suit No. 12103 of 1994 on the file of this Court. This Court, by judgment, dated 15.09.2011, dismissed it and, thus, the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court has attained finality. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 herein, who is plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, filed I.A. No. 510 of 1994 for appointment of advocate commissioner to ascertain mesne profits of his 1/4th share of the plaint schedule properties and also to direct the Commissioner to file his report. Like-wise, he has also filed I.A. No. 509 of 1994 for passing of a final decree directing the respondents to deliver possession of his 1/4th share to him.

(v) Both the aforesaid petitions were dismissed by the trial Court on 19.07.2006 for default as respondent No. 1 herein, who is petitioner-plaintiff therein, was absent. In fact, by then, the appeal suit No. 12103 of 1994 was pending on the file of this Court and was disposed of only on 15.09.2011. The petitioner - plaintiff in I.A. Nos. 509 of 1994 and 510 of 1994 claimed that he was minor even on the date of dismissal of both the applications for default. Since the appeal suit was pending preferred by the revision petitioners and, in fact, proceedings were also transferred to Gudivada Court, delay of 3160 days occurred in filing restoration petition to restore I.A. No. 509 of 1994 and, accordingly, I.A. Nos. 342 of 2015 to condone the delay of 3160 days and I.A. No. 343 of 2015 to set aside the order passed on 19.07.2006 in I.A. No. 509 of 1994, were filed. Like-wise, I.A. No. 344 of 2015 to condone the delay of 3160 days in filing the petition to resto