ORDER : Heard Mr. M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K. Gani Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Sudarshan Malugari, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners had filed a memo vide U.S.R. No.58413 of 2022, dated 11.07.2022 stating that respondent Nos.7 to 9 are not necessary parties to the present revision. 2. Challenging the order dated 28.02.2022 in I.A. No.5 of 2022 in O.S. No.170 of 2008 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Shadnagar, the petitioners herein, proposed defendants in the suit, have filed the present revision. 3. FACTS: i) Respondent No.1 herein - plaintiff in the suit, had filed a suit vide O.S. No.170 of 2008 against defendant Nos.2 to 8 therein for partition of the suit schedule lands. ii) During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, defendant No.5 died on 15.08.2018. Therefore, the petitioners herein, wife, sons and daughter respectively of defendant No.5, had filed a petition vide I.A. No.5 of 2022 in O.S. No.170 of 2008, to condone the delay of 1098 days in filing the petition to bring the legal heirs of defendant No.5 as defendant Nos.9 to 12. iii) According to the petitioners, being the legal heirs, they are entitled to succeed the share of the deceased defendant No.5 and, therefore, they are proper and necessary parties to the aforesaid suit. iv) From the date of death of defendant No.5, the petitioners were under the impression that they may get notices from the Court and as such, due to lack of knowledge with regard to the legal procedure, they kept quiet all these days and petition for their impleadment was not filed within the stipulated time. v) In the said circumstances, there is a delay of 1098 days in filing the petition to implead them as defendant Nos.9 to 12 in the aforesaid suit. vi) The said petition was opposed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 contending that the petitioners herein have not explained the day-to-day delay caused in filing the application. vii) The delay is not properly calculated. viii) Respondent No.1 - plaintiff had filed an application vide I.A. No.23 of 2021 under Section - 5 of the Limitation Act, to bring the legal heirs of defendant No.5 on record, and the same was dismissed vide order dated 09.12.2021. vii) The delay is not properly calculated. viii) Respondent No.1 - plaintiff had filed an application vide I.A. No.23 of 2021 under Section - 5 of the Limitation Act, to bring the legal heirs of defendant No.5 on record, and the same was dismissed vide order dated 09.12.2021. ix) Respondent No.1 - plaintiff has not challenged the said order and, therefore the same attained finality. 4. Vide impugned order dated 28.02.2022, Court below had dismissed the said application on the ground that the reasons mentioned by the petitioners herein to condone the delay of 1098 days caused in bringing the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.5 on record are not satisfactory. The Court presumes that every party is aware of the law and hence cannot claim ignorance of the law as a defence to escape liability. 5. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: i) Sri M. Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the impugned order is not a reasoned order and, therefore it is nullity. In support of his contention, he has relied on the principle laid down by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Bolla V.K. Radha Krishna v. Viswanadha Venkata Subbaiah, 2002 (5) ALT 355 (S.B.) . ii) He would further contend that the Court below could have treated the said application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code as one filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, in order to do justice. Merely because of non-mentioning of correct provision of law as Order - 1 Rule - 10 of the Code at the initial stage by the advocate for the plaintiff, parties should not be made to suffer. Therefore, the Court below has committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. He has placed reliance on the principle laid down in Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (deceased) through L.Rs, AIR 2018 SC 490 . iii) He would further submit that Section - 5 of the Limitation Act meant for doing substantial justice to the party but not curtail their valuable rights. It has to be applied in elastic manner but not rigid sense. Once the application is dismissed, any amount of injustice would be caused to the petitioner as well as legal heirs of deceased. 6. It has to be applied in elastic manner but not rigid sense. Once the application is dismissed, any amount of injustice would be caused to the petitioner as well as legal heirs of deceased. 6. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No1: Sri K. Gani Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the plaintiff had already filed an application vide I.A. No.23 of 2021 to condone the delay of 1044 days caused in filing the petition to bring the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.5 on record, and the same was dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 09.12.2021. Thus, the plaintiff had already taken steps to bring the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.5 on record. Therefore, he sought to pass appropriate orders on merits considering the said submission. 7. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Nos.3 to 5: i) The petitioners herein have not explained the day-to-day delay caused in filing the petition to bring the legal heirs of the decreased defendant No.5 on record. ii) As per their own affidavit, they had knowledge of pendency of the suit. It is a collusive suit between the plaintiff and defendant No.5. Respondent No.1 herein - plaintiff had not challenged the order passed by the Court below dated 09.12.2021 in I.A. No.23 of 2021 in O.S.No.170 of 2008. iii) Referring to the docket proceedings and earlier proceedings in the suit, he would submit that the suit was decreed ex parte and a petition for setting aside the same was filed and the same was allowed. Defendant No.5 was silent all through and he had not taken any step by filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree. It is binding on defendant No.5 and the petitioners herein as his legal heirs. 8. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT: i) As stated above, respondent No.1 - plaintiff had filed the suit vide O.S.No.170 of 2008 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule lands and defendant No.5 died on 15.08.2018 leaving behind the petitioners herein as his legal heirs. Respondent No.1 -plaintiff had also filed an application vide I.A. No.23 of 2021 in O.S. No.170 of 2008 on 23.11.2021 to condone the delay of 1044 days in filing the petition to bring the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.5 on record. Respondent No.1 -plaintiff had also filed an application vide I.A. No.23 of 2021 in O.S. No.170 of 2008 on 23.11.2021 to condone the delay of 1044 days in filing the petition to bring the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.5 on record. The said petition was dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 09.12.2021 on the ground that respondent No.1 - plaintiff has not explained the reasons for the abnormal delay of 1044 days in filing the petition. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 - plaintiff has not challenged the said order. ii) It is the specific contention of Mr. M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners herein that the petitioners herein have not received any notice in I.A. No.23 of 2021. In the order passed by the Court below in I.A. No.23 of 2021, there is no mention that a notice was served on the petitioners herein, the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.5 and that they enter their appearance. However, it is mentioned that it had heard Mr. B. Rajashekar Raju, learned counsel for the respondents - defendants. iii) It is the normal practice that plaintiff will take steps to bring the legal heirs of any deceased defendant in a suit. In the case on hand also, respondent No.1 - plaintiff had filed I.A. No.23 of 2021, but the same was dismissed for the afore-stated. Thereafter, the petitioners herein being the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.5 have filed I.A. No.5 of 2022 to condone the delay of 1098 days in filing petition to bring the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.5 on record as they are entitled to the estate of deceased defendant No.5. They are necessary and proper parties to the suit and that from the date of death of defendant No.5 they were under the impression that they may get notice from the Court. Therefore, they have not filed legal heir petition in time and that delay was caused in filing the said petition. iv) No doubt, there is huge delay of 1098 days in filing the petition to bring the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.5. They are entitled to succeed the share of the deceased defendant No.5 in suit schedule properties as his legal heirs. iv) No doubt, there is huge delay of 1098 days in filing the petition to bring the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.5. They are entitled to succeed the share of the deceased defendant No.5 in suit schedule properties as his legal heirs. v) In Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a Code of Procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. vi) In Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia, (supra), the Apex Court held that in a suit for partition, the position of plaintiffs and defendants can be interchangeable. It is that each adopts the same position with the other parties. While dealing with an application filed under Order - 1, Rule - 10 of the C.P.C., Courts are not supposed to adopt hyper-technical approach which if carried to end may result in miscarriage of justice. If the trend is to encourage fair play in action in administrative law, it must all the more inhere in judicial approach. Such applications have to be approached with this view whether substantial justice is done between the parties or technical rules of procedure are given precedence over doing substantial justice in Court. Undoubtedly, justice according to law, law to be administered to advance justice. The Apex Court considered the object, scope and ambit of Order I, Rule 10 and Order XXII and Rule 4 of CPC. vii) In M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., v. The State of U.P., AIR 1979 SC 621 , the Apex Court held that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that everyone is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement, there is no such maxim known to the law. Over a hundred and thirty years ago, Maule, J., pointed out in Martindala v. Faulkner [1846 2 CB 706] that ”there is no presumption in this country that every person knows the law, and it would be contrary to common sense and reason if it were so”. Over a hundred and thirty years ago, Maule, J., pointed out in Martindala v. Faulkner [1846 2 CB 706] that ”there is no presumption in this country that every person knows the law, and it would be contrary to common sense and reason if it were so”. Scrutton L.J., also once said that "it is impossible to know all the statutory law, and not very possible to know all the common law." But it was Lord Atkin who, as in so many other spheres, put the point in its proper context when he said in Evans v. Bartlem [ 1937 AC 473] that "……the fact is that there is not and never has been a presumption that everyone knows the law. There is the rule that ignorance of the law does not excuse, a maxim of very different scope and application." viii) Coming to the facts of the case on hand, it is relevant to note that perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the Court below has reproduced verbatim the order dated 09.12.2021 passed in I.A. No.23 of 2021 including the cause title, reasons, maxims and findings etc. The reasons mentioned in the affidavits filed in I.A. No.23 of 2021 and in I.A.No.5 of 2022 are different. There is no consideration of the said reasons by the Court below. It is a copy-paste order. Thus, it is not a reasoned order. Any order without reasons is an order passed without application of mind and it is a nullity as held in Bolla V.K. Radha Krishna , (supra) supra. ix) The Court below failed to consider the object of Order XXII, Rule - 4 of the CPC. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein that though the petition was filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC., the relief sought is to bring Legal Representatives of defendant No.5 on record. Therefore, mis-quoting and wrong quoting of a provision will not disentitle a party in seeking relief. x) A bare reading of Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC makes it clear that it applies only in the case where the death of one of the several defendants or sole defendant occurs during subsistence of the suit. Therefore, mis-quoting and wrong quoting of a provision will not disentitle a party in seeking relief. x) A bare reading of Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC makes it clear that it applies only in the case where the death of one of the several defendants or sole defendant occurs during subsistence of the suit. xi) It is opt to note that it is a suit for partition wherein, the position of plaintiffs and defendants can be interchangeable, which adopts the same position with the other parties. Legal Representatives of a deceased defendant have to succeed his share in the suit schedule property. Therefore, while dealing with an application filed to condone the delay in bringing Legal Representatives of a deceased defendant, court is not expected to adopt hyper-technical approach. It has to adopt an approach to do substantial justice and to administer to advance justice. xii) Admittedly, the petitioners herein are the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.5, and the suit is filed for partition and they have to succeed the share of defendant No.5 being his Legal Representatives. They are necessary parties to the present suit. xiii). It is relevant to note that the plaintiff is not opposing the present petition and defendants are opposing on the ground that it is a collusive suit. They have to take the defence during trial. But they cannot oppose the petition to condone the delay in bringing Legal Representatives of deceased defendant No.5 on record. In fact, plaintiff had already taken steps to bring Legal Representatives of the deceased defendant No.5 on record. There is no consideration of the said facts and law by the Court below in the impugned order. 9. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the impugned order is not a reasoned order on consideration of both facts and law. The Court below has committed error in dismissing the application. Therefore, this Court has power to correct the said error by exercising its power of superintendence under Article - 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. CONCLUSION: i) In view of the above discussion, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 in I.A. No.5 of 2022 in O.S. No.170 of 2008 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Shadnagar is hereby set aside. 10. CONCLUSION: i) In view of the above discussion, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 in I.A. No.5 of 2022 in O.S. No.170 of 2008 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Shadnagar is hereby set aside. I.A. No.5 of 2022 is accordingly allowed condoning the delay of 1098 days in filing the petition to bring the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.5 on record as defendant Nos.9 to 12 in O.S. No.170 of 2008. ii) However, the suit is of the year 2008 and, therefore, learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the very suit itself in accordance with law within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed.