ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the XII Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar in I.A.No.109 of 2020 in O.S. No.873 of 2016.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit is filed by the deceased plaintiff, who is none other than the father of the petitioners, for a declaration of title and to declare that the registered sale deeds executed by defendant No.1, mentioned in the suit, are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the father of the petitioners died on 16.09.2017 due to ill-health leaving behind the petitioners/proposed plaintiffs, respondents/proposed plaintiffs No.5 & 6, and respondents/proposed defendants No.12 and 13.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that one of the sons of the deceased plaintiff, namely Sri B. Papi Reddy died on 10.07.2017, leaving behind petitioner/proposed plaintiff No.4 and respondents/proposed plaintiffs No.5 & 6. Due to the demise of the plaintiff and Sri B. Papi Reddy within a span of two months, the petitioners were not in a position to contact their counsel and take the necessary steps to file the petition to bring the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record within the prescribed period. Consequently, the suit stood abated for non-filing of the legal representative petition within time. As a result, there occurred a delay of 654 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement and to bring the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners, along with respondents/proposed plaintiffs No.5 and 6 herein, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, being I.A. No.109 of 2020 in O.S. No.873 of 2016 on the file of the learned XII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, seeking condonation of delay of 654 days in filing the set aside abatement petition to bring the legal representatives of petitioner No.1. However, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application with the following observations:

“The petitioners failed to explain that why there is such a huge delay in filing the petition after the death of the sole plaintiff and one of his son was reported as died. Within one or two months of the death of the deceased, even after the death of the one of the sons of the deceased, the petitioners ought to have presented the petition within stipulated time to condone the delay. However, in this petition there is no cogent and convincing reasons explained for day-to-day delay to consider in this petition to condone the delay of 654 days. Therefore, there are no justifiable grounds in allowing this petition with such huge unexplained day-to-day delay. Accordingly, this petition is lacking merits to be considered and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.”

6. Referring to the aforesaid observations made by the learned trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the sufficient cause set out in the affidavit filed in support of the application and ought to have adopted a liberal approach to advance substantial justice. He further contended that the trial Court committed a grave error in dismissing the impugned I.A. without properly considering the reasons assigned for the delay.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no petition was filed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record even after a lapse of more than two years from the date of death. It is contended that the petitioners have invented a false and untenable story only to explain the inordinate delay in filing the present application. Therefore, the learned trial Court, having duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly dismissed the app