- (1.) Heard Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri V.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the respondents on the delay condonation application in the appeal. Explanation for the delay in moving the substitution application is sufficient. The delay is condoned and the substitution application is allowed. The abatement, if any, is set aside.
(2.) Let the memo of appeal be corrected accordingly during the course of the day.
(3.) An argument has been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the suit cannot be said to be barred by Order XXI, Rule 63 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the C.P.C.), has no force and is rejected, as the findings recorded in this regard by the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality.;