R.R.YADAV,J. - (1.) HEARD .
(2.) PERUSED the substitution application, for setting aside abatement and application moved under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay together with counter -affidavit filed by the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondents No. 1 and 2, opposing the aforesaid applications. In the present Second Appeal an application for setting aside the abatement supported with an affidavit has been moved as envisaged under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC wherein in the affidavit it is alleged that the defendant appellants came to know about the death of plaintiff -respondent No. 1 Mohan Lal who expired on 15.2.94 and about the death of plaintiff -respondent No. 2 Baloo Lal who expired on 13.8.88 from the application dated 10.4.95 moved by the counsel of heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 1 and 2, for dismissing the appeal as abated due to their failure to move substitution application within limitation. It is stated that after getting information on 10.4.95 from the aforesaid application the counsel for defendant appellants wrote a letter on 15.4.95 to them which was received by Shri Mishri Lal appellant No. 2 who in turn wrote a letter to appellant No. 5, Bhuralal who is suffering from paralysis therefore he informed his son Madan Lal and made him conversant about the death of respondents No. 1 and 2.
(3.) IT is further stated in paragraph 4 of the aforesaid affidavit that before application for dismissing the appeal as abated on 10.4.95 was moved by the learned Counsel of heirs and legal representatives of deceased plaintiff -respondents named above the appellants have no knowledge about the death of respondents No. 1 and 2.;