ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, challenging the docket order, dated 03.08.2022, passed in I.A.No.80 of 2022 in A.S.No.5 of 2016, by the I Additional District Judge, Adilabad, whereby, the subject I.A.No.80 of 2022 filed by the petitioners herein under Section 148 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the delay of (982) days in filing the petition to bring the legal representative of the deceased respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff on record, was dismissed.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri L. Sandeep, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 and Sri V. Neelakanta Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5/proposed respondents. I have perused the record.

3. Initially, respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff filed the subject suit in O.S.No.94 of 2013 before the learned Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad, seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, mesne profits and costs. The said suit was decreed. Challenging the same, petitioner No.1 herein/defendant filed the subject appeal in A.S.No.5 of 2016 before the Court below. During the pendency of said appeal, the petitioner No.1 herein/defendant died and the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 herein, being the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner No.1 herein, were brought on record. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff also died on 03.10.2019 leaving behind his wife and daughters, i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein as his legal heirs. Therefore, the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 herein filed the subject I.A.No.80 of 2022 before the Court below seeking to condone the delay of (982) days in filing the petition to bring the respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein on record as the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1. The said application was dismissed by the Court below vide impugned order, dated 03.08.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 filed this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the delay was neither intentional nor wanton, but for the time taken for obtaining the Death Certificate and Family Members’ Certificate. The Court below erroneously dismissed the subject I.A.No.80 of 2022. The subject suit, which was assailed in the subject appeal, is for declaration of title and recovery of possession involving substantial rights of the parties. The respondent Nos.2 to 5, being the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1, are necessary parties for proper adjudication of the matter. If the delay is not condoned and if the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not brought on record, irreparable loss would ensue to petitioner Nos.2 to 5, which cannot be compensated by any other means. It is settled law that it is always better to decide the matter on merits rather than on technicalities. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are designed with an objective that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights. In the affidavit filed in support of the subject I.A.No.80 of 2022, the petitioners have clearly explained the circumstances under which they could not file subject application in time, but the Court below erroneously held that the petitioners were lethargic and did not evince any interest to prosecute the matter. No prudent person would afford to allow the limitation for filing the application to expire, when he/she has got a good case in his/her favour. Considering the circumstances of the case, the Court below ought to have condoned the delay of (982) days and ultimately prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 did not seriously oppose for allowing the subject I.A.No.80 of 2022 by condoning the delay of (982) days.

6. The law on the aspect of condonation of delay is