ORDER : J. Uma Devi, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the common order dated 01.07.2019, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District in I.A. Nos. 533 of 2015 and 534 of 2015 in O.S. No. 129 of 2013, wherein the relief sought for condonation of delay of 26 days in filing of the application for restoration of the suit in O.S. No. 129 of 2013 and for restoration of the suit respectively refused by the Court below, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioners therein. 2. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 129 of 2013, which is pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District for adjudication. The aforementioned suit is filed by them for declaration of their right of rastha over the plaint plan Rl Rl Rl rastha to reach main road RRR on South from their plaint plan 'X' and 'XI' marked properties; and for consequential permanent injunction to restrain the defendants and their men and for mandatory injunction etc., etc. 3. It is asserted by the petitioners in the affidavit annexed to their application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act vide I.A. No. 533 of 2015; that on 21.01.2015, while the matter was posted for trial, they could not make their appearance before the Court below and that their chief affidavit was not filed, and on the same day, the Court below dismissed the suit for default. The reason assigned for by the 1st petitioner for his absence on 21.01.2015 was that he was suffering from back pain from 15.1.2015 onwards and could not be able to move from the bed and the Dr. S. Md. Hussain, under whom he was taken treatment advised him to take bed rest for minimum period of two months. Under these circumstances, he could not appear before the Court below on 21.01.2015 to proceed with the trial and that his absence on that day was neither wilful nor wanton. 4. This was the reason assigned by the 1st petitioner in the affidavit filed in I.A. No. 533 of 2015 for his absence before the Court below on 21.01.2015, on which date the suit filed by him along with another was dismissed for default. 5. 4. This was the reason assigned by the 1st petitioner in the affidavit filed in I.A. No. 533 of 2015 for his absence before the Court below on 21.01.2015, on which date the suit filed by him along with another was dismissed for default. 5. It was further asserted by the 1st petitioner that after he recovered from ill-health, he approached his counsel and came to know that the suit filed by him along with another against the respondent was dismissed for default, and by the time he approached his counsel, the time prescribed for filing of the application for restoration expired and there was delay of 26 days in filing of the application for restoration of the suit. 6. The application filed for restoration of the suit as well as the delay condonation petition were eventually opposed by the respondent herein before the Court below and it was contended by him that if the 1st petitioner was unwell nothing prevented the 2nd petitioner to appear before the Court below on the day when the suit was posted for trial, on that day the 1st petitioner could have informed about his ill-health to his counsel. If really the 1st petitioner was unwell, and was not in a position to appear before the Court below on the day when the matter was posted for trial and could have requested his counsel to seek adjournment. Petitioners were not diligent in pursuing the case filed by them since they failed to pursue the matter diligently, the suit was dismissed for default on the ground of ill-health pleaded by the 1st petitioner in his affidavit was a reason created for filing of the present application. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while supporting the impugned common order contended that the delay caused in filing of the application for restoration was not properly explained and in support of the ill-health pleaded, no substantial material was placed. The Court below taking note of all these aspects rightly dismissed the applications filed by the revision petitioners for condonation of delay of 26 days in filing of the application for restoration and accordingly not ordered for restoration of their suit by dismissing the applications filed in this regard. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, placed reliance on the following judgments filed in support of his above mentioned arguments. 1. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, placed reliance on the following judgments filed in support of his above mentioned arguments. 1. The order dated 16.07.2014, passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 5037 of 2013 (1) (Mohd. Shakeel Ahmed v. M/s. Pioneer Overseas Corporation of India). 2. Judgment dated 19.09.1997, passed by the Apex Court in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another. 3. Judgment dated 15.01.2007, passed by the Apex Court in Appeal (Civil) 220 of 2007 in D. Gopinathan Pillai v. State of Kerala and another 2007 (6) ALT 21.1 (DN SC). 4. Order dated 16.08.2013, passed by the Madras High Court in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1414 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011 in P. Ayyasamy v. B. Mohammed Yousuff. 9. It is understood from the factual aspects pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings that the suit filed by the petitioners for declaration of their right on the "rastha" shown in the plaint plan, consequential permanent injunction and a mandatory injunction has been dismissed for default on 21.01.2015, due to failure of the petitioners to make their appearance before the Court below on 21.01.2015, on which date their case was posted for trial. An affidavit is filed by the 1st petitioner in I.A. No. 533 of 2013, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the delay of 26 days in filing of the application for restoration of the suit, as stated that from 15.01.2015 onwards, he was suffering from severe back pain and that the doctor who treated him for the said ailment advised him to take bed rest and by the time, he approached his counsel after recovering from the ailment, the time prescribed for filing of the application for restoration of the suit had lapsed and that there was delay of 26 days in filing of the application for restoration. 10. As there was delay of 26 days in filing of the application for restoration of the suit, the petitioners filed two applications one for condonation of delay, and another for restoration of suit which was dismissed for default on 21.01.2015. 11. The ground of ill-health pleaded by the 1st petitioner for his non-appearance on 21.01.2015, has not been disputed. 10. As there was delay of 26 days in filing of the application for restoration of the suit, the petitioners filed two applications one for condonation of delay, and another for restoration of suit which was dismissed for default on 21.01.2015. 11. The ground of ill-health pleaded by the 1st petitioner for his non-appearance on 21.01.2015, has not been disputed. But, it appears that no documentary evidence is filed by the 1st petitioner in proof of the ground of ill-health pleaded by him for not filing the application for restoration within the time prescribed. The delay of 26 days, which has taken place in filing of the application for restoration of the suit is not so abnormal. 12. Further, the ground of ill-health pleaded by the 1st petitioner for non filing of the application within the time prescribed has not been proved as a false ground by the respondent herein. In all the judgments cited by the respondents, the delay in filing of the application appears to be abnormal. 13. In the case of D. Gopinathan Pillai v. State of Kerala and another 2007 (6) ALT 21.1 (DN SC) (supra), there is inordinate delay of 3320 days in filing of the appeal and that the Court below in that case has found fault with the officers for not raising any objections for such a long delay caused in filing of the appeal and that no proper reason whatsoever is assigned by the Court below for allowing such an application which is filed with an inordinate delay. 14. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another (supra), the District Government Pleader, Special Law Offices, Law Secretary and the Advocate General, on examining the scope of filing of the appeal, decided that there was no scope for filing of the appeal. Subsequently, despite the opinion referred to above by them, the appeal was filed nearly two and half years after pronouncement of the judgment and decree by the learned Special Judge. In such circumstances, the Apex Court observed that the discretion exercised by the High Court was neither proper nor judicious. 15. In the judgment rendered by my learned brother in order dated 16.07.2014, in C.R.P. No. 5037 of 2013, there was inordinate delay of 384 days in filing of the application for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed for default on 03.07.2013. 16. 15. In the judgment rendered by my learned brother in order dated 16.07.2014, in C.R.P. No. 5037 of 2013, there was inordinate delay of 384 days in filing of the application for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed for default on 03.07.2013. 16. In that case, one of the reasons given for non filing of the application for restoration within a time was that the 1st petitioner was suffering from joint pains due to chikungunya. In the above cited case, the suit was dismissed for default on 03.07.2012. The application for restoration of the suit was filed in the month of August, 2013 and for filing of the application with such an abnormal delay, no sufficient cause was showed and the documents produced in proof of ill-health were disproved by the other side. 17. In P. Ayyasamy v. B. Mohammed Yousuff C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1414 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011 (supra), which the respondent seeks rely, it was stated that his counsel at Coimbatore has not informed about the ex parte decree passed against him and that he came to know about the ex parte decree two months after passing of the same, when a notice was served on him by some third parties, but, the advocate who appeared in the suit also appeared before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, at the relevant point of time on behalf of the petitioner and this was the circumstances which made the High Court to disbelieve his version. 18. In all the judgments referred above, there is inordinate delay in filing of the application. In the instant case, the delay caused in filing of the application for restoration is 26 days, which is not so abnormal. But there appears some slackness on the part of the petitioner, if the petitioner was unwell and was not in a position to appear before the court on the date fixed for trial, he could have informed his counsel or he might have asked the 2nd petitioner who was also party to the suit to appear before the Court below on the date when case was posted instead of getting the case unrepresented by anybody. In that view of the matter, it can be construed that the first petitioner was not diligent enough in prosecuting the case. In that view of the matter, it can be construed that the first petitioner was not diligent enough in prosecuting the case. But this cannot be a ground to order for dismissal of the suit without going into the merits of the case. The suit admittedly filed for declaration of "rastha" which is marked in the plaint plan and for permanent enjoyment and for mandatory injunction. In view of the peculiarity of the case and the fact that the delay that has taken place in filing the application for restoration with inordinate delay, the Court below ought to have condoned the delay by penalising the petitioner by imposing costs. 19. Since the delay in filing the restoration of the suit is not so abnormal, I am inclined to condone the delay by imposing costs of Rs. 1,000/- payable by the petitioners to the respondent. 20. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed setting aside the common order dated 01.07.2019, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District in I.A. Nos. 533 of 2015 and 534 of 2015 in O.S. No. 129 of 2013 and restore O.S. No. 129 of 2013 to its file. No order as to costs. 21. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of.