ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code (in short CPC) against the Orders passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, in I.A.No.491 of 2012 in O.S.No.185 of 2008, dated 13.11.2014, wherein and whereby the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 339 days in filing petition under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief before the trial Court is that she filed suit against the respondents/defendants for Partition of plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and allot one such separate share to her. She submits that previously suit was referred to Lok Adalat but it was not settled and then sent back to the regular Court and called on 25.03.2011 for trial but due to ill-health and old age, she could not attend before the Court on that day and her counsel was engaged in some other Court due to that there was no representation on the date when suit was posted and then trial Court dismissed the suit for default. It is also the contention of the petitioner that her advocate wrote letters to her address but she was not residing in Mangamuru village due to ill-health, she has been residing at her brothers house in Venganaguntapalem village and she could not contact her advocate to file petition to set aside dismissal order and delay of 339 days occurred in filing the petition. She prays to allow the petition.

3. The 1st respondent/D.1 filed counter denying averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention of R.1 that there are no grounds to allow the petition and the petitioner is hale and healthy and she is very well know about the proceedings and filed petition only to drag on the proceedings. He prays to dismiss the petition.

4. The learned trial Judge after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner unable to explain inordinate delay in filing petition to set aside dismissal order

5. Aggrieved by the Orders passed by the executing Court, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff stating that Orders passed by the Court below is illegal, irregular and vitiated by in correct exercise of jurisdiction vested in it. It is the contention of the petitioner that trial Court erred in holding that she has not filed any proof to support of her ill-health, change of her address and not considered her age, due to her old age, she could not prove positively her ill-health by producing documentary evidence. It is also the contention of the revision petitioner that suit filed suit for seeking partition of family properties and R.1 is no other than her son and she has got right in the plaint schedule properties and if opportunity is not given to her rights will be affected in immovable properties involved in this suit. She prays to allow the revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that due to old aged ailments, the petitioner could not proceed with the trial and as the petitioner was residing at her brothers house letters addressed to her by counsel not received thereby she could not file petition in time to set aside dismissal orders of the suit. She argued that in view of nature of the suit and an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to proceed with trial as valuable rights of the parties involved in immovable properties. She prays to allow the petition.

7. Learned counsel for R.1 mainly contended that no documentary proof is filed to show that the petitioner was suffering from ill-health and she was residing at her brothers house due to that she could not receive intimation from her advocate. It is the contention of the learned counsel for R.1 that nature of ill-health also not mentioned in the affidavit of the petitioner, which petition is filed only to drag on the