APHC010589102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the Third day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Six The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.2989 of Between: 1. Y. Raghunatha Reddy, S/o.Y.Venkata Ranga Reddy, aged about 30 years, R/o.Puli Proddatur Village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram District. 1. Dudekula Dasthagiri, S/o. Venkatappa, aged about 50 years, R/o. Puli Proddatur village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram District. 2. Palle Konda Reddy, S/o.Pulla Reddy, aged about 50 years, R/o. Puli Proddatur village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram District. 3. Maduru Nageswara Reddy, S/o.Late Surya about 34 years, R/o.Puli Proddatur village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram District. 4. Juturu Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o.Adeppa, aged about 63 years, R/o. Puli Proddatur village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram District. 5. Yerrajagantigari Venkata Ranga Reddy (died) 6. Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Office, Tadipatri. 7. The District Collector, Collector IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the Third day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.2989 of 2025 Y. Raghunatha Reddy, S/o.Y.Venkata Ranga Reddy, aged about 30 years, R/o.Puli Proddatur Village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram ... and udekula Dasthagiri, S/o. Venkatappa, aged about 50 years, Puli Proddatur village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram District. alle Konda Reddy, S/o.Pulla Reddy, aged about 50 years, R/o. Puli Proddatur village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram District. aduru Nageswara Reddy, S/o.Late Surya Narayana Reddy, aged about 34 years, R/o.Puli Proddatur village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram District. uturu Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o.Adeppa, aged about 63 years, R/o. Puli Proddatur village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram District. …Respondents / Petitioners / enkata Ranga Reddy (died) ahsildar, Mandal Revenue Office, Tadipatri. he District Collector, Collector’s office, Anantapuram. …Respondents / Defendants Nos.1 to 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Tuesday, the Third day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Six Y. Raghunatha Reddy, S/o.Y.Venkata Ranga Reddy, aged about 30 years, R/o.Puli Proddatur Village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram ...Petitioner udekula Dasthagiri, S/o. Venkatappa, aged about 50 years, Puli Proddatur village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram District. alle Konda Reddy, S/o.Pulla Reddy, aged about 50 years, R/o. Puli Proddatur village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram District. Narayana Reddy, aged about 34 years, R/o.Puli Proddatur village, Tadipatri Mandal, uturu Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o.Adeppa, aged about 63 years, R/o. Puli Proddatur village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram District. / Plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 2 BSB,J C.R.P.No.2989 of 2025 8. Smt.Y.Parvathamma, W/o.Y.Venkata Ranga Reddy, aged about 50 years, R/o.Puli Proddatur village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram District. 9. Y.Bhaskar Reddy, S/o.Y.Venkata Ranga Reddy, aged about 34 years, R/o.Puli Proddatur village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram District. 10. Smt.Y.Prameela, D/o.Y.Venkata Ranga Reddy, aged about 32 years, R/o. Puli Proddatur village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram District. (R6 to R10 not necessary parties) ...Respondents / Proposed Defendants Nos.4, 5 and 7. Counsel for the petitioner: 1. G.Sravan Kumar Counsel for the respondents: 1. K.Narsi Reddy 3 BSB,J C.R.P.No.2989 of 2025 The Court made the following order: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.07.2025 allowing the petition in I.A.No.37 of 2024 in O.S.No.226 of 2014 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Tadipatri filed by the plaintiffs under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 126 days in filing an application to set aside the abatement of the suit, caused by the death of defendant No.1 on 05.01.2022. 2. According to the petitioners’ counsel, the delay was caused due to wide spread of COVID-19 and confirmation for the death of the defendant and that the delay is neither intentional nor wanton. 3. The petition was opposed by the respondent No.6, one of the proposed parties, stating that the petitioners were aware of the death of the defendant as he is a co-villager and the explanation for the delay is vague and un- substantiated. The respondent relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhivchandra Shankar More Vs. Balu Gangaram More and others1 and Union of India Vs. Ram Charan (deceased) through his legal representatives2. 4. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the petition observing that the petitioners demonstrated bonafides in prosecuting the matter and that if the delay is not condoned, no substantial justice would prevail and the rights of the petitioners would be irretrievably prejudiced. While allowing the petition, the trial Court imposed costs of Rs.2,000/- on the petitioner to pay the same to the contesting respondent. 1 (2019) 6 SCC 387 2 AIR 1964 SC 215 4 BSB,J C.R.P.No.2989 of 2025 5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision was filed by the respondent No.6 alleging that the trial Court erred in allowing the petition despite the petitioners failing to show sufficient cause for the delay. 6. In this regard, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the death of the party had been informed to the Court by the counsel for the defendant No.1 on 16.08.2022, but the petition to set aside the abatement of the suit was filed along with the petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act on 07.07.2023 stating a false reason that the delay was caused as it took time for confirmation of the death. Therefore, he vehemently contended that the trial Court erred in allowing the petition, the petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for the delay. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 4 / plaintiffs submitted that the delay was caused due to wide spread of COVID-19 and confirmation of the death of the defendant and that it would also take time for him to ascertain the details of the legal representatives on the death of the party. He further submitted that the trial Court imposed costs to compensate the inconvenience caused to the revision petitioner and further observed that the delay was condoned in the interest of justice to avoid prejudice for disposal of the case other than on merits. 8. A perusal of the record shows that the affidavit seems to have been prepared by the counsel as on 09.11.2022 itself, but it was filed in the Court on 07.07.2023 only. The reasons are not obvious from the records, but the delay from 09.11.2022 to 07.07.2023 may not be due to personal latches of the parties. Therefore, the parties should not be put to sufferance for no fault of them. Moreover, no prejudice was caused to the respondents, particularly the contesting respondent as the inconvenience is duly compensated by awarding costs. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court. 5 BSB,J C.R.P.No.2989 of 2025 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. ___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated. 03.02.2026 GRL 6 BSB,J C.R.P.No.2989 of 2025 91 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi C.R.P. No.2989 of 2025 Dated. 03.02.2026 GRL