The court allowed a delay in filing for setting aside an abatement order due to communication issues faced by petitioners residing abroad, emphasizing the importance of sufficient cause.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner to set aside the docket order dated 05.12.2017 passed in I.A.No.118 of 2017 in O.S. No. 216 of 2007 by the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. By the impugned docket order, the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of CPC to condone the delay of 357 days in filing the applications to set aside the abatement order and to bring the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 as plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 as legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.1, was dismissed by the trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that though vide letter dated 16.11.2024 defendant No.1 assured to complete the sale transaction conveying clear titled schedule land after receiving payments from plaintiff No.1 for purchasing the schedule land i.e., Plot bearing No.46 admeasuring 388 Sq.Yards of land in Grand View Jubilee Hills layout, defendant No.1 has failed to execute sale deed in respect of schedule land in favour of plaintiff No.1. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff No.1 filed suit against the defendants vide O.S. No.216 of 2007 before the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Pendente lite, plaintiff No.1 was died and that the revision petitioners have filed I.A.No.118 of 2017 through their GPA holder to condone the delay of 357 days in filing the applications to set aside abatement order and to bring the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 being the LR’s of the deceased plaintiff No.1 on record.

4. By the impugned docket order dated 05.12.2017, the trial Court has dismissed the I.A.. Hence, the present revision petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri Madhusudhan Reddy Pasunoor, learned counsel for the petitioners. Though notice was served, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that there is communication gap about the case proceedings as the revision petitioners are residing in USA. He further submitted that since the petitioners are in USA, the I.As. are filed by their GPA holder. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in Om Prakash Gupta Alias Lallowa and others v. Satish Chandra1 and prayed the Court to allow this Civil Revision Petition.

7. In case of Om Prakash Gupta Alias Lallowa and others (Supra), the Apex Court at paragraph No.11 held as under:

“11. Rule 1 of Order XXII, CPC provides that when a party to a suit passes away, the suit will not abate if the right to sue survives. In instances where the right to sue does survive, the procedure for bringing on record the legal representative(s) of the plaintiff/appellant and the defendant/respondent are provided in Rules 3 and 4, respectively, of Order XXII. The suit/appeal automatically abates when an application to substitute the legal representative(s) of the deceased party is not filed within the prescribed limitation period of 90 days from the date of death, as stipulated by Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 . It could well be so that death of a defendant/respondent is not made known to the plaintiff/appellant within 90 days, being the period of limitation. Does it mean that the suit or appeal will not abate? The answer in view of the scheme of Order XXII cannot be in the negative. In the event the plaintiff/appellant derives knowledge of death immediately after the suit/appeal has abated, the remedy available is to file an application seeking setting aside of the abatement, the limitation wherefor is stipulated in Article 121 and which allows a period of