THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2640 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 19.06.2025 in I.A.No.310 of 2024 in I.A.No.60 of 2023 in O.S.No.324 of 2020 by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Court, Nagarkurnool (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”)

2. Heard the submissions of Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the condone delay petition filed by them was dismissed by the learned Junior Civil Judge without any proper reasoning. He further submitted that they did not have knowledge about the death of respondent No.4 and thus, a delay has occurred in bringing the legal representatives of respondent No.4 on record. Hence, they approached the trial Court with a petition to condone the delay of 461 days, but the trial Court has failed to consider their request and has dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present petition is filed. He therefore, prayed to set aside the orders.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has failed to appear, inspite of an opportunity being given.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record reveals that OS.No.324 of 2020 was decreed ex- parte on 16.08.2022. Subsequently, I.A.No.60 of 2023 was filed under Order-9, Rule-13 seeking condonation of delay of 218 days in filing the petition under Order-9, Rule-13 to set aside the ex- parte decree. In the said I.A.No.60 of 2023, the petitioners wanted to bring in the legal representatives of respondent No.4 on record, but there was a delay of 461 days and hence, they filed I.A.No.310 of 2024 to condone the said delay in bringing the legal representatives on record. It is borne out by record that the suit is decreed ex-parte and the said suit was filed for Declaration of Title and consequentially, to evict the defendants from the suit schedule property. Thus, the suit being a comprehensive suit, the matter needs proper adjudication on merits to do substantial justice to the parties. It is held in the Judgment dated 16.08.2022 that the defendants failed to contest the matter as they failed to file the written statement within the statutory period and hence, they were set ex-parte.

7. It is further borne out by record that the defendants have preferred an application under Order-9, Rule-13 with a delay of

216 days. During the said pendency of the application, the present petition is filed seeking a condonation of delay of 461 days in bringing legal representatives of respondent No.4 on record. The reasons assigned by the trial Court is that another suit i.e., O.S.No.13 of 2023 is filed by the petitioners for Perpetual Injunction, disclosing the death of the decree holder herein. Further, they have filed a petition to implead the legal representatives on 18.03.2024 with a delay of 72 days in the said suit vide O.S.No.13 of 2023. The reason assigned for the dismissal of the present application is that the defendants have not shown any sufficient cause, they remained absent throughout the suit proceedings, inspite of service of summons and that they filed a Memo under Ex.R2 stating that the defendant has died on 06.10.2023. Thus, the trial Court has held that they had knowledge about the death of the defendant, but failed to take steps in time.

8. A perusal of the counter filed by the respondents, shows that the defendants in the said suit OS.No.13 of 2023 have filed a Memo in the Court on 01.11.2023 intimating about the death of respondent No.4 and thus, the petitioners herein have filed a petition to bring the legal representatives on record with a delay of 72 days on 18.03.2024. The present petition is filed on

08.04.2024, i.e., almost 20 days after filing of the said petition. It is the assertion of respondents in this petition that the petitioners herein gained knowledge about the death of respondent No.4 on 01.