IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3156 of 2019 DATE: 12.02.2026 Between Tekriyal Rajeshwar Rao and 5 others …Petitioners AND Peddolla Kistaiah …Respondent

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kamareddy dated 19.12.2017 in IA No.168 of 2017 in IA No.131 of 2010 in OS No.47 of 2008 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of Limitation Act r/w 151 of Civil Procedure Code to condone the delay of 370 days in filing the petition under Order 22 Rule 9(2) of CPC to set aside the abatement.

2. Heard Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the entire material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as, as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.47 of 2008, was initially filed before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kamareddy, seeking relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 27.05.1991 in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.134/2 to an extent of Ac.1-39 guntas situated at Dharmaraopet Village, Sadashivnagar Mandal, Nizamabad District. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that when the sole defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed, he got issued a legal notice dated 01.04.2008 to the sole defendant. It has gone out of the record that in the said suit, the sole defendant was set exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 21.07.2008. The sole defendant noticed that a notice was affixed on the door of his house with regard to filing of E.P.No.15 of 2009. Thereafter, the sole defendant filed application to set aside the exparte decree along with an application IA No.131 of 2010 in the said suit to condone the delay of 567 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree dated

21.07.2008.

5. During the pendency of the IA No.131 of 2010, the sole defendant died on 10.01.2016. In view of the death of petitioner No.1 who was the sole defendant in the said suit, petitioner Nos.2 to 6 herein filed I.A.No.168 of 2017 in I.A.No.131 of 2010 in O.S. No.47 of 2008 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking condonation of a delay of 370 days in filing a petition to set aside the abatement under Order XXII Rule 9(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that petitioner No.2, the wife of the deceased petitioner late T. Rajeshwar Rao, who died on 10.01.2016 leaving behind petitioner No.2 and his two sons and daughters as his legal heirs. After the death of her husband, she fell sick and suffered with several health problems, including diabetic neuropathy and on advice of the Doctors, she has taken complete bed rest and could not move from the bed as such, she could not approach her advocate and failed to file LR petition within the stipulated period of time. Consequently, there was a delay of 370 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement.

6. The respondents filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the application and contended that the petitioners had full knowledge of the death of petitioner No.1 and that the application seeking condonation of a delay of 370 days is not maintainable in law. It is further contended that the deponent and other petitioner not submitted any medical certificate to explain the delay and no cogent reasons have been shown to condone the delay.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the said application.

7. Having heard both the counsel, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that no such medical certificate filed by the petitioner No. 2 to show that she was not hale an