Judgment : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of the Court below in condoning the delay of 766 days in representing the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 217 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet, against the petitioners for partition and for other reliefs. The suit came to be dismissed for default on 14.02.2009. The respondent herein filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C., seeking for restoration of the suit. 4. It is an admitted fact that the said application was filed in time. However, the Court below has returned the said application for effecting certain compliance. Instead of representing the same within the time stipulated by the Court, the respondent represented the same on 02.01.2012, with a delay of 766 days. Only to condone the said delay, the respondent filed I.A. No. 145 of 2012 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is stated by the respondent that he has undergone heart surgery during the relevant point of time and therefore, he was not in a position to attend the Court. Taking note of the said submissions made by the respondent, the Court below has condoned the delay, however, by ordering cost of Rs.2,000/- payable to the petitioners. The said order is challenged by the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. 5. Perusal of the order passed by the Court below would show that the delay has been condoned by taking note of the ill-health, more particularly, the heart surgery undergone by the respondent. Thus by exercising its discretionary power, the Court below has condoned the delay in representing the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. It has also imposed cost of Rs.2,000/- on the respondent. As it is admitted fact that the said application under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C., has been filed in time and only in representing the same, there occurred a delay of 766 days which the Court below has condoned by taking note of the reasons stated by the respondent, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with such discretionary order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition deserves no merit and the same is dismissed and the Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition deserves no merit and the same is dismissed and the Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks a direction to the Court below for disposal of the suit at an early date. 7. Since the suit is of the year 2001, the Court below is directed to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.