ORDER :

Ravi Cheemalapati, J.

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed questioning the legality and correctness of the orders dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram in dismissing the Interlocutory Applications filed to condone the delay in filing petitions to set aside the abatement, for setting aside the abatement and to implead the Legal Representatives of the deceased defendant no. 1 and defendant no.2, separately (in all six petitions) .

2. Inasmuch as all these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders passed in the applications filed in the same suit, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, the respondent nos.9 to 11 are defendant nos. 9 to 11, the respondent nos. 12 and 13 are the proposed defendant nos.12 & 13 to be brought on record as Legal Representatives of defendant no.1 and defendant nos. 14 to 16 are the proposed defendant nos.14 to 16 to be brought on record as Legal Representatives of defendant no.2.

4. The facts that led to filing of these Civil Revision Petitions, in brief, are that:

(i) the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant nos. 1 to 8 for declaration of her right and title over the plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction. The said suit came up for arguments and in the course of arguments, having learnt that the defendant nos. 1 to 3 died during trial, he filed petitions vide I.A.Nos.1258, 1259 & 1260 of 2027 to condone the delay of 242 days to set aside the abatement and add defendant nos.12 & 13 as Legal Representatives of the deceased defendant no.1 and similarly filed petitions vide I.A.Nos.1261, 1262 & 1263 of 2017 to add defendant nos.14 to 16 as Legal Representatives of deceased defendant no.2 by condoning the delay of 263 days. The said petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Civil Revision Petitions and keeping in view of the contention raised by the plaintiff therein that the delay was occurred in bringing the Legal Representatives on record for the reason that the defendants did not inform her about the death of the defendants, this Court disposed of those CRPs granting liberty to the plaintiff to file petitions afresh taking also the said plea and accordingly, the petitions covered under the orders impugned in these Civil Revision Petitions came to be filed praying to condone the delay of 1946 and 2698 days by adding the subsequent delay occurred from the date of filing of the initial petitions till the date of filing the subsequent petitions.

(ii) The defendant nos.9 and 10 filed counters denying the relief sought in the petitions by contending that the delay has not been satisfactorily been explained by giving sufficient reasons and that all the Legal Representatives of the deceased first defendant were not brought on record and accordingly prayed to dismiss the petitions.

(iii) The learned trial Judge, upon considering submissions made by both the learned counsel and material available on record dismissed the petitions, observing that the death of the defendants has been informed to the court by the counsel by filing memo on 12.07.2017 itself, however the plaintiff did not take steps till 27.12.2017.

(iv) The said dismissal orders have been assailed in these Civil Revision Petitions.

5. Heard Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and Sri P.RajeshBabu, learned counsel for respondent nos.9 & 10/defendant nos.9 and 10. The respondents 1 to 4 and 11 died and respondent nos.5 to 8, and 14 to 16 though served did not choose to put up their appearance.

6. Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petitions in trial Court and grounds of Civil Revision Petitions would contend that though the delay sought to be condoned appears very inordinate, however, infact the initial delay was relatively a minor and manageable