- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
(2.) IN the instant I.A. petition, prayer has been made for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of Appellant Nos. 6, 9, 10 and 13. In the application the appellant has stated that appellant no. 9 Lodhu Mian died during pendency of the appeal. The date of death has not been mentioned in the said paragraph. On query, learned counsel for the appellant stated that appellant no. 9 died sometime in 1992. Similarly, no date of death of appellant no.10 has been mentioned in the application. However, it is stated that he had died in 1992 -93. In paragraph 6 of the application, it is stated that it has come to the knowledge of the appellants that some of the respondents have already died during the pendency of the appeal, so respondents may be called upon to substitute their legal heirs in the present appeal. This appeal is against the judgment of affirmance. The suit for partition was filed against the defendant /appellant in the year 1961 which was decreed. The appellant thereafter filed Title Appeal, No, 45/ 1964, which was dismissed on 23.6.1990. The appellant, thereafter, filed Second Appeal in 1990. In this way, although suit for partition was decreed and affirmed by the appellate court, the appellant could not get the fruits of decree. Some of the appellant died about, 12 -14 years back, but no steps have been taken for substitution of their heirs and legal representatives within time. No satisfactory reasons have been given for not taking steps for substitution within time.
(3.) IN the aforesaid premises, the substitution petition is hereby rejected! Consequently this Second Appeal is dismissed as abated.;