BULUSU SUNDARESHWARA MURTHY Vs. RAVI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the first defendant in O.S.No. 88 of 2003 on the file of the Court of II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), Mahaboobnagar, against the order dated 09.03.2012, in I.A.No. 45 of 2011 in the said suit.

(2.) I have heard Sri Shafath Ahmed Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/first defendant and Sri K.Someswara Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff.

(3.) The brief facts relevant for considering the present Civil Revision Petition are that the respondent's mother G.V. Ramanamma filed O.S.No.88 of 2003 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Mahaboobnagar, for declaration of title to the suit property and consequential injunction. Pending the suit, the plaintiff died on 07.06.2010. The second respondent is her only son. He did not make any application to implead himself as the plaintiff in the suit after the death of his mother and consequently the suit was dismissed as abated on 03.11.2010. After coming to know about the dismissal of the suit, he filed I.A.No.45 of 2011 under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the order dismissing the suit as abated, and the delay sought to be condoned is 255 days. It is mentioned by him in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that after the death of his mother, his daughter developed illicit intimacy with a person of Mahaboobnagar and the said person to grab his property beat the first respondent and threatened him. Under those circumstances the first respondent states that he left Mahaboobnagar to save his life and came back only in the first week of June, 2011. Thereafter, it is said that he obtained the death certificate of his mother from the Municipality and then filed the petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act.