A.G.URAIZEE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Nisharg Shah for learned counsel Mr. M.N.Devnani for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. D.D.Nanavati for respondent no. 2. Respondent nos. 1 & 3 though served, have not entered their appearance either in person or by duly instructed advocate.
(2.) IN this Revision Application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 11/9/2012 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jodiya) below an application for condonation of delay, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners has rejected.
(3.) THE brief resume of the facts necessary for disposal of this Revision application are that one Kariben @ Savitaben Devjibhai filed Civil Suit no. 12/95 in the Court of learned Judicial Civil Judge (J.D.) Jodiya for declaration, permanent injunction and possession of the suit properties shown in Schedule "A" to the plaint. The suit came to be dismissed for default on 14/9/2001. The plaintiff, therefore, filed an application dated 8/10/2001 for restoration of the suit. During the pendency of this Restoration Application, plaintiff Savitaben passed away on 29/9/2005. The legal heirs and representatives of the deceased plaintiff Savitaben took out the application dated 19/3/2007 for brining them on record as legal heirs and representatives of the deceased plaintiff Savitaben. This application came to be rejected by the learned Trial Judge vide order dated 24/12/2010 on the ground of delay. The present petitioners have challenged this order in this Court by filing Civil Revision Application 90/2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the Revision Application with a liberty to submit an appropriate application before the learned Trial Judge for bringing heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff on record with a prayer to set aside the abatement and to condone the delay. Therefore, the Civil Revision Application was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty as prayed for by the learned advocate for the petitioners vide order dated 20/3/2012. The petitioners preferred Civil Misc. Application No. 5/12 for setting aside the abatement along with the delay condonation application. The learned Trial Judge by the impugned order dated 11/9/2012 has rejected the application, therefore, this Revision Application. Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge suffers from the total non application of mind and the impugned order is self contradictory. Therefore, he has urged that the Revision Application may be allowed and the delay which has been caused in preferring application for setting aside the abatement of the suit may be condoned.;