ORDER:

1. The revision petition is filed seeking set aside of the orders in I.A Nos.54 and 218 of 2018, dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 504 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC.

2. The suit filed by the petitioner and her mother for partition. Preliminary decree was passed in the suit. A preliminary decree was passed on 07.01.2004 in the suit for partition of the suit schedule property. The respondent herein filed Appeal in A.S No.122 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nellore and the said appeal was dismissed on merits by confirming the judgment dated 03.09.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2^nd respondent filed S.A No.55 of 2008 before the Hon’ble High Court , the said Second Appeal was dismissed for default on 03.02.2015.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that he was un-aware of the factum of the dismissal of the second appeal and further that when he was minor, his mother was representing him in the subject suit. On attainment of majority on 18.09.2016, he has looked after the case. However, being unaware of the dismissal of the second appeal, they could not pursue the application filed for passing of final decree, therefore, I.A Nos.687 of 2006 and 841 of 2005 were dismissed for default on 01.09.2016, and that there was no communication from the advocate, who was appearing in the second appeal for the appellant/petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner’s mother was un-well and suggested bed rest and was hospitalized at Nellore and Chennai, therefore, he could not get in touch with his counsel to file the application for restoration of the suit. The learned trial Judge being not satisfied with the reasons assigned for condonation of delay, dismissed the application. Hence, the Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 2^nd respondent herein is none other than the father of the petitioner and that he has stated in the counter-affidavit that during the pendency of the second appeal, between the mother of the petitioner father of the petitioner, i.e.,the 2nd respondent herein, there was an understanding with the 2^nd respondent that they would take the share of the petitioner out of the actual extent of land fell to the share of the 2^nd respondent out of Ac.5.82 cents. In pursuance of the said understanding, a foisted case filed against the 2^nd respondent was disposed of acquitting him and FCOP No. 56 of 2010 was also disposed of recording full satisfaction. It is stated by the 2^nd respondent that in view of the said compromise the petitioner’s mother did not pursue the suit..

6. The learned Judge has observed that the petitioner did not file any document in support of his contention. In the absence of the same, the contention of the petitioner was observed to be unsubstantial.

7. Having regard to the contentions advanced, since the dispute is between the father, mother and the son, where the 2^nd respondent has himself agreed in the counter-affidavit that during pendency of the second appeal on understanding the cases filed by the petitioner’s mother were disposed of and in view of the said understanding, the petitioner’s mother was un-aware of the order passed in the final decree proceedings in I.A No.841 of 2015 and in the light of the said affidavit of the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner has not filed any document in support of his contention that his mother was un-well during the relevant period may not be gone into.

8. This Court is of the considered view that the order of the learned trial Judge requires to be set aside by condoning the delay of 504 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC, subject to certain terms.

9. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, the orders of the learned trial Judge in I.A