ORDER

Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Heard learned counsel for both sides.

4. The respondent s Civil Suit No. 2-B of 1970 to recover Rs. 20,644/- with proportionate costs was decreed by the District Court, Mandsaur. First Appeal No. 57/76 filed by the appellant was pending in the High Court. When the matter had come up on March 16, 1983 for hearing, the counsel for the respondent had informed that the respondent had died on December 31, 1980 and he gave the names of his legal representatives. The application for substitution of the legal representatives under Order 22, Rule 4 of the CPC was filed on April 8, 1983, with a delay of 15 days. The applications for setting aside abatement and delay were dismissed by the High Court; consequently it dismissed the appeal. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

5. It is contended by Shri Bachawat, learned senior counsel appearing for the State, that the delay was properly explained. In the circumstances the High Court was not justified in refusing to condone the delay on bring the legal representatives on record and setting aside the abatement. Shri Gambhir, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that in spite of the respondent s co