( 1 ) DELAY condoned.

( 2 ) THE father of the petitioner was the 2nd defendant in OS No. 232 of 1986 filed in the court of Civil Judge at Udipi. The suit had been filed under Order 34 Rule 4 for the recovery of the money due under an hypotheca. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 28/6/1989 on the basis of a joint memo filed by the parties. Thereafter, Muthu Marakala, the seconddefendant/surety, died. An Application No. 316 of 1991, to pass final decree, when was filed by the plaintiff, it also made an application to bring the petitioner as legal representative of deceased second respondent, which was opposed on the ground that such application was barred by limitation and the preliminary decree, itself, had abated after the expiry of 90 days from the date of death of defendant 2. An objection had also been raised that the petitioner was not liable to pay the amount of the decree unless principal debtor-defendant was proceeded against. That application was allowed by the trial court. On revision, while leaving open the second question, the High court of Karnataka by its impugned order dated 19-4-1994 made in CRP No. 782 of 1994 upheld the order of the trial court.

( 3 ) S