Judgment :- This revision petition challenges an order of the I Assistant Judge, who was in-charge of II Assistant Court, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing an application in I.A.No.8124 of 2004 in O.S.No.8069 of 1991, seeking condonation of delay of 136 days in making an application for the restoration of the suit. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. There is no representation on the side of the respondents. 3.It was a suit for partition. The matter was posted in the list on 10. 2003 for trial. Due to the non-appearance of the plaintiffs and the fact that there was no representation on their side by the Counsel, the suit was dismissed for default. The plaintiffs filed an application to set aside the said order. While doing so, there was a delay of 136 days. The instant application I.A.No.8124/2004 was filed seeking to condone the said delay. The lower Court has dismissed the application. Hence, this revision before this Court. 4.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that it is true that the suit was dismissed for default on 10. 2003; that the wife of the deceased-first plaintiff fell ill because she sustained fracture; that she was hospitalised during the relevant period; that the second plaintiff was the only person to attend on her; that under the circumstances, they could not come to Court; that the Counsel appearing for them at that time, could not also attend Court as she delivered twin children, and thus, for the non-appearance, the suit was dismissed for default; that after ordering notice in the revision, an affidavit of the Counsel who appeared for the petitioners before the lower Court, has also been placed before this Court, as to the reasons how she could not appear at the time of the hearing; that it is true that there was a delay of 136 days; but, it was a suit for partition; that if not restored, the plaintiffs would lose their interest in the property, and under the circumstances, the lower Court should have considered the reasons adduced and allowed the application, but not done so, and hence, the order of the lower Court has got to be set aside. 5.The Court looked into the materials available and also considered the submissions made by the Counsel. 6.It was a suit for partition. It is true that the matter was pending from 1991 onwards. 5.The Court looked into the materials available and also considered the submissions made by the Counsel. 6.It was a suit for partition. It is true that the matter was pending from 1991 onwards. The suit was originally filed by one Munusamy, whose legal representatives were added on his death in 1999. From the impugned order, it could be seen that the suit was once dismissed in 1997 when the said Munusamy was alive. On his death, the other plaintiffs were added as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. It could also be seen from the materials available that the matter was posted on 10. 2003 in the list for trial. None of the plaintiffs was present, and also the Counsel did not appear for them on that day. According to the petitioners, the first plaintiff, the wife of the said Munusamy, is an aged lady, and she sustained fracture, and she was hospitalised, and the other plaintiff was to look after her during the relevant time, and as far as the Counsel was concerned, she could not appear since she delivered twins, and at that time, there was complication, and she was advised to take rest. In order to prove the said contention, an affidavit of the Counsel has also been filed, and it is also looked into. That apart, there was a delay of 136 days in restoration of the suit, which, in the opinion of this Court, is ordinarily neither inordinate nor inexcusable. In a case like this and that too in a suit for partition, where the parties have been prosecuting the case, the delay of 136 days in restoration of the suit, in the opinion of this Court, has to be viewed liberally, and the interest of justice would also require so. Under the circumstances, the order of the lower Court is set aside, and the delay of 136 days is condoned. The lower Court is directed to restore the suit within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 7.Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.