M. Seetharama Murti, J. - (1.) This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ('the Code', for brevity) by the unsuccessful petitioners/ plaintiffs, is directed against the order, dated 21.09.2016, of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, Mahabubnagar District, passed in I.A.No.24 of 2016 in O.S.No.21 of 2007 filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 151 of the Code requesting to condone the delay of 1,142 days in filing a petition under Order IX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code for restoration of the suit, O.S.No.21 of 2007 to file after setting aside the order of dismissal for default, dated 04.12.2012, passed in the said suit.
(2.) I have heard the submissions of Sri G.Anandam, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, (hereinafter, 'plaintiffs') and of Sri P.Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, (hereinafter, 'defendants'). I have perused the material record.
(3.) The facts, which are necessary to be stated as a prelude to this order, in brief, are as follows:- The plaintiffs brought the suit against the defendants seeking declaration of title and ownership and for perpetual injunction in respect of a plot located at Chakaligeri of Kosgi village more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. When the suit was called on 04.12.2012 before the Court below, there was neither appearance nor representation on behalf of the plaintiffs. Hence, the said suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code seeking restoration of O.S.No.21 of 2007 to file by setting aside the order, dated 04.12.2012, dismissing the suit for default. As a delay of 1142 days had occasioned in filing the afore-stated interlocutory application, the plaintiffs also filed the subject interlocutory application in I.A.No.24 of 2016 requesting to condone the said delay. On merits and by the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, dismissed the said application and refused to condone the delay inter alia holding that there was no representation for the plaintiffs and that they failed to pay the costs imposed by the Court and that the cause shown by them for condonation of the delay is flimsy and that the extraordinary delay of 3 ½ years in seeking restoration of the suit is on account of inaction and negligence on the part of the plaintiffs and that the same is wanton and deliberate and that the causes, namely, amicable settlement and death of the counsel are unbelievable and that therefore, the petition for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed.;