Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THE S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 159/2013 was dismissed as abated by this Court by order dated 10.05.2013 as the appellants failed to bring on record the legal representatives of respondent Suresh Kumar S/o. Late Ram Kishan, who had died on 17.08.2011.
(2.) INSTEAD of filing application under Order XXII, Rule 9 CPC and to take steps for bringing on record the legal representatives under Order XXII, Rule 4 CPC, the present application seeking restoration of the appeal was filed by the appellant -applicants alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay. Though a prayer seeking restoration was made in the application, no application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased Suresh Kumar was filed. Subsequently, an application under Order XXII, rule 4 and Order XXII, Rule 9 CPC has been filed for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased Suresh Kumar and for setting aside the abatement and a prayer is being made that the application originally filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act be treated as application seeking condonation of delay in filing application under Order XXII, Rule 9 CPC.
(3.) A detailed reply to all the applications have been filed by the respondents. It is, inter alia, indicated that the conduct of the apparent has been grossly negligent inasmuch as despite filing application under Order XXII, Rule 10A CPC, the legal representatives were not brought on record in time and in another appeal pertaining to the same property wherein the appellants are parties, similar application under Order XXII, rule 10A was filed and therein, the appellants filed application under Order XXII, Rule 4 CPC and the legal representatives were taken on record, which conclusively indicates the knowledge of death of Suresh Kumar and his legal representatives so far as the appellants are concerned and, therefore, the entire basis of the application seeking condonation is misconceived rather incorrect.;