ORDER : 1. Since all the three Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of the same suit i.e. Original Suit No.26 of 2015, on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Chittoor, they are disposed of by this Common Order. 2. The revision petitions are filed questioning the docket order dated 29.07.2024, passed in IA Nos.151, 152 and 153 of 2023, in O.S.No.26 of 2015, on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Chittoor. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. He filed suit in OS.No.26 of 2015, on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Chittoor, for Specific Performance based on agreement of sale dated 26.09.2014, executed by defendant Nos.1 & 2. It is further case of the petitioner that, defendant Nos.1 & 2 are brother and sister who executed agreement of sale dated 26.09.2014, in favor of the petitioner over the suit schedule property. It is further stated that, as per the said agreement, defendant Nos.1 & 2 have agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for a sum of Rs.90,00,000/-. It is further contended that, as on the date of execution of agreement of sale, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the 1st defendant and an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the 2nd defendant towards part payment. Pending the said suit it is stated that, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 have alienated the suit schedule property in favor of the 3rd defendant and thereby he was impleaded in the suit by order dated 20.01.2016, passed in IA No.256 of 2015. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that, pending adjudication of the said suit, the 2nd defendant filed memo dated 24.06.2022, stating that, the 1st defendant died on 03.05.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner filed memo requesting the trial court to direct the 2nd defendant to furnish particulars of legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant. Thereafter, the 2nd defendant filed another memo dated 11.08.2023, by furnishing the details of legal heir of the deceased 1st defendant. After receipt of the said memo, the plaintiff filed three Interlocutory Applications vide I.A.Nos.151, 152 and 153 of 2023. I.A.No.151 of 2023 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 328 days in filing the petition to implead the legal heir of deceased 1st defendant. After receipt of the said memo, the plaintiff filed three Interlocutory Applications vide I.A.Nos.151, 152 and 153 of 2023. I.A.No.151 of 2023 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 328 days in filing the petition to implead the legal heir of deceased 1st defendant. I.A.No.152 of 2023 is filed under Order XXII Rule 9 and Section 151 CPC, to set aside the abatement. I.A.No.153 of 2023 is filed under Order XXII Rule 4 and Section 151 CPC, to implead 4th defendant/proposed respondent as legal representative of 1st defendant. After hearing the said applications, the trial Court, by order dated 08.07.2024, allowed all the applications by way of common order on condition of payment of costs of Rs.500/- each by the petitioner to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and further directed that the said costs to be deposited on or before 15.07.2024. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 15.07.2024, the Presiding Officer was on leave, and therefore by mistake and oversight he could not pay the costs on the said date and the suit was posted to 29.07.2024. On 29.07.2024, the petitioner filed three applications seeking to extend time to pay costs as directed by the Court by order dated 08.07.2024. The said applications were numbered as CFR Nos.4324, 4323 and 4322 respectively and the same were returned on the ground maintainability. Further on 29.07.2024, all the three applications vide I.A.Nos.151, 152 and 153 of 2023 were dismissed as the petitioner could not comply with the conditional order dated 08.07.2024. Questioning the said docket order, dated 29.07.2024, the present Civil Revisions Petitions are filed. 6. Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondents. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that, he filed suit seeking Specific Performance based on agreement of sale dated 26.09.2014, executed by defendant Nos.1 & 2. it is the specific case of the petitioner that, he has paid an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to 1st defendant and an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to 2nd defendant. Further, it is not in dispute that 1st defendant was expired on 03.05.2022. it is the specific case of the petitioner that, he has paid an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to 1st defendant and an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to 2nd defendant. Further, it is not in dispute that 1st defendant was expired on 03.05.2022. The petitioner has filed Interlocutory Applications seeking to bring the legal heir of 1st defendant on record and the same were allowed by common order dated 08.07.2024 on condition that the petitioner depositing Rs.500/- on or before 15.07.2024. The said order could not be complied with by the petitioner by mistake and oversight as the Presiding Officer was on leave on the said date. Then the matters were posted to 29.07.2024 and on the said date, the petitioner filed three applications seeking to extend time for depositing the costs and to comply with the order dated 08.07.2024. The said applications were returned. The trial Court, by order dated 29.07.2024, dismissed the I.A.Nos.151, 152 and 153 of 2024 as the petitioner failed to comply with order dated 08.07.2024. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner had paid substantial amount to defendant Nos.1 and 2 and in the event of Interlocutory Applications filed by the petitioner are not allowed, the valuable rights of the petitioner would be at jeopardy. Further, during the course of hearing it is brought to the notice of this Court that the 2nd defendant also died issueless. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner could not comply with order dated 08.07.2024, passed by the trial court. During the next date of hearing he preferred three applications seeking to extend the time for depositing the costs as per order dated 08.07.2024. Further, the petitioner also undertook to pay the costs on the same date i.e., on 29.07.2024, but as can be seen from the record those applications got returned on the question of maintainability. Further, on the same date the interlocutory applications were dismissed. 11. It is specifically pleaded that the petitioner could not pay costs on 29.07.2024, by mistake and oversight. If the petitioner is allowed to comply with order dated 08.07.2024, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. Furthermore, the applications cannot be dismissed based on technicalities. The constitutional courts have time and again held that, if the technicalities and substantial justice are pitted against each other, the substantial justice would prevail over the technicalities. If the petitioner is allowed to comply with order dated 08.07.2024, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. Furthermore, the applications cannot be dismissed based on technicalities. The constitutional courts have time and again held that, if the technicalities and substantial justice are pitted against each other, the substantial justice would prevail over the technicalities. Apart from the same, on perusal of the pleadings in the plaint, the petitioner claims that he has paid substantial amount to defendant Nos.1 & 2 towards part payment of the total consideration. 12. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order dated 29.07.2024, passed by the trial Court in I.A.Nos.151, 152 and 153 of 2023 are hereby set aside on payment of costs of Rs.1000/- each, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.