The main legal point established is the need for substantial justice in delay condonation petitions, the importance of not adopting a hyper-technical approach, and the need to advance justice in such matters.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K. Gani Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Sudarshan Malugari, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners had filed a memo vide U.S.R. No.58413 of 2022, dated 11.07.2022 stating that respondent Nos.7 to 9 are not necessary parties to the present revision.

2. Challenging the order dated 28.02.2022 in I.A. No.5 of 2022 in O.S. No.170 of 2008 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Shadnagar, the petitioners herein, proposed defendants in the suit, have filed the present revision.

3. FACTS:

i) Respondent No.1 herein - plaintiff in the suit, had filed a suit vide O.S. No.170 of 2008 against defendant Nos.2 to 8 therein for partition of the suit schedule lands.

ii) During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, defendant No.5 died on 15.08.2018. Therefore, the petitioners herein, wife, sons and daughter respectively of defendant No.5, had filed a petition vide I.A. No.5 of 2022 in O.S. No.170 of 2008, to condone the delay of 1098 days in filing the petition to bring the legal heirs of defendant No.5 as defendant Nos.9 to 12.

iii) According to the petitioners, being the legal heirs, they are entitled to succeed the share of the deceased defendant No.5 and, therefore, they are proper and necessary parties to the aforesaid suit.

iv) From the date of death of defendant No.5, the petitioners were under the impression that they may get notices from the Court and as such, due to lack of knowledge with regard to the legal procedure, they kept quiet all these days and petition for their impleadment was not filed within the stipulated time.

v) In the said circumstances, there is a delay of 1098 days in filing the petition to implead them as defendant Nos.9 to 12 in the aforesaid suit.

vi) The said petition was opposed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 contending that the petitioners herein have not explained the day-to-day delay caused in filing the application.

vii) The delay is not properly calculated.

viii) Respondent No.1 - plaintiff had filed an application vide I.A. No.23 of 2021 under Section - 5 of the Limitation Act, to bring the legal heirs of defendant No.5 on record, and the same was dismissed vide order dated 09.12.2021.

ix) Respondent No.1 - plaintiff has not challenged the said order and, therefore the same attained finality.

4. Vide impugned order dated 28.02.2022, Court below had dismissed the said application on the ground that the reasons mentioned by the petitioners herein to condone the delay of 1098 days caused in bringing the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.5 on record are not satisfactory. The Court presumes that every party is aware of the law and hence cannot claim ignorance of the law as a defence to escape liability.

5. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

i) Sri M. Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the impugned order is not a reasoned order and, therefore it is nullity. In support of his contention, he has relied on the principle laid down by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Bolla V.K. Radha Krishna v. Viswanadha Venkata Subbaiah, 2002 (5) ALT 355 (S.B.) .

ii) He would further contend that the Court below could have treated the said application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code as one filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, in order to do justice. Merely because of non-mentioning of correct provision of law as Order - 1 Rule - 10 of the Code at the initial stage by the advocate for the plaintiff, parties should not be made to suffer. Therefore, the Court below has committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. He has placed reliance on the principle laid down in Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (deceased) through L.Rs, AIR 2018 SC 490 .

iii) He would further submit that Section - 5 of the Limitation Act meant for doing substantial justice to the party but not curtail their valuable