Common Judgment:

1. The petitioner is one and the same in all the civil revision petitions and as the all the civil revision petitions are connected, they are heard together and disposed of by passing this Common Order. The present civil revision petitions are filed by the petitioner questioning the legality and correctness of the orders dated 26.07.2023 in I.A.Nos.114, 115 & 116 of 2021 in O.S.No.72/2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

2. The facts that led to filing of the present civil revision petitions are that:

               (a) The respondent nos.1 to 4 are the plaintiffs and the respondent nos.5 & 6 are the defendants in the O.S.No.72/2018. The plaintiffs/respondent nos.1 to 4 filed a suit vide O.S.No.72/2018 for declaring that the 2nd defendant is not the wife of the deceased Harshavardhana Rao and for recovery of the death benefits of the deceased Harshavardhana Rao received by the 2nd defendant together with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit.

               (b). In the said suit, the petitioner herein (third party) filed I.A.Nos.114 of 2021 under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 325 days in filing the application for setting aside the abatement, I.A.No.115 of 2021 under Order 22 Rule 9 to set aside the abatement order and I.A.No.116 of 2021 under Order 22 Rule 4 to add her as the 3rd defendant to the suit proceedings. After hearing both sides, the court below has dismissed the I.A.No.114 of 2021 declining to condone the delay of 325 days on the ground that the petitioner has not explained the day to day delay in filing the application and the petitioner’s contention that due to lack of knowledge, is not sufficient for filing the petition after lapse of 325 days. In view of the dismissal of I.A.No.114 of 2021, the remaining applications were closed by the court below. Aggrieved, thereby the present civil revision petitions were filed.

3. Heard Sri G.Elisha, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K.Simhachalam, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revisions contended that, time and again, the Apex court has categorically held that each and every delay need not be explained, however, the same was not taken due note of by the trial court while declining to condone the delay. He also submitted that, the Apex court and High Courts have categorically held in catena of judgments that, while dealing with the delay petitions, it is the basic principle to verify the delay has occurred intentionally or not and also if the delay is condoned, whether it causes any damage/prejudice or not to the other parties and if necessary, to conduct enquiry by summoning all the concerned while adjudicating the delay petitions. He further submitted that, the court below has failed to consider that no prejudice will be caused if the delay is condoned, while dismissing the application. He further submitted that, the subject suit involves valuable rights in the property and the petitioner being adopted by the defendant no.2(died) has right over the suit schedule property and if the delay is not condoned, she would be put to suffer much loss and hardship. As such, prayed to allow the revisions.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that, as the petitioner has not explained the delay properly, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application by giving proper reasons and there are no valid grounds raised or urged warranting the interference of this court. As such prayed to dismiss the revisions.

6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel.

7. The court below dismissed the application vide I.A.No.114 of 2021 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 325 days in filing the application for setting aside the abatement, consequently, the other applications vide I.A.No.115 of 2021 & I.A.No.116 of 2021 filed for setting aside the abatement order and to add the petitioner as LR of the deceased defendant to the suit proceedings were closed. Assailing the said orders, the petitioner had filed the present civil revision petitions. The court below has dismissed the delay application on the ground that the petitioner has not explained the day to day delay in filing the application and the petitioner’s contention that due to lack of knowledge, is not sufficient for filing the petition after lapse of 325 days. Doubtless, the petitioner has not pleaded the facts properly while seeking to condone the delay of 325 days. However, there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, by virtue of ex-parte decree passed by the trial court in O.S.No.72/2018, the petitioner’s rights would be affected. Further, the Apex court has held that, usually the parties should not be thrown out of the courts on the mere ground of delay.

8. As property rights of individuals are involved, they cannot be debarred from pursuing the suits/litigations solely on the ground of delay. By virtue of principles of equity and the Apex Court precedents, parties should generally not be thrown out of the court solely on the ground of delay and laches, when substantial and valuable rights over the property are involved. While law of limitation is designed to ensure diligence, courts tend to prioritize substantial justice over technical procedural lapses. Courts should look at the cause of delay rather than length of delay. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to condone the delay in filing the application and allow the CRP.No.2386 of 2021.

9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition vide C.R.P.No.2386 of 2021 is allowed by setting aside the orders dated 26.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.114/2021 in O.S.No.72/2018. Consequently, I.A.No.114/2021 is allowed, subject to condition that the petitioner shall make payment of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the contesting respondent/defendant within a period of two(02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the revision petition stands dismissed.

10. In view of the orders passed in CRP.No.2386 of 2021, the other civil revision petitions vide CRP.No.2384 of 2021 & CRP.No.2385 of 2021 are disposed of and the other applications vide I.A.No.115 of 2021 & I.A.No.116 of 2021 are remitted back to the court below and the trail court is directed to dispose of them on the merits.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.