( 1 ) THE petitioner is the Food Corporation of India. They laid a suit for recovery of certain amounts against the sole defendant, a firm represented by the Proprietor. While the suit is pending, on 23-6-1976, the counsel for the defendant filed a memorandum in the lower Court intimating that the Proprietor of the defendant-firm died on 24-3-1976. Then the counsel intimated this fact to the petitioner, the petitioner made enquiries and by a report dt. 15-9-1976 it was intimated that the proposed respondents are the legal representatives of the Proprietor of the defendant-firm. On 16-9-1976 an application i. e. , I. A. 959/76 has been filed to bring the legal representatives on the premise that the petition was filed within 90 days from the date of the knowledge. In the counter-affidavit it is contended that the suit got abated in view of the fact that the legal representatives of the Proprietor were not brought on record within a period of 90 days as contemplated under Art. 120 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. Then an application being I. A. 339/77 was filed seeking to condone the delay to set aside the abatement. I. A. No. 340/77 was filed to set aside the abatement. All these petitions have been dismissed by the lower Court. Against the order in I. A. No. 959/76, C. R. P. No. 2231/82 has been filed. Against the order in I. A. No. 339/77, C. R. P. No. 781/83 has been filed and against the order in I. A. No. 340/77, C. R. P. No. 1497/82 has been filed.

( 2 ) SRI N. V. Suryanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner being a statutory Corporation is not aware of the date of the death of the Proprietor of the defendant-firm and for the first time it became aware of his death only on 23-6-1976 viz. , the last date of the expiry of 90 days through a memorandum filed by the learned counsel for the defendant and immediately thereafter proper steps have been taken. In the memorandum, no details of the legal representatives of the Proprietor of the defendant-firm have been given. As a consequence the petitioner has to make enquiries regarding the defendant. In this regard, diligent and prompt steps have been taken and the petitioner being a statutory Corporation, it has got to make enquiries through its subordinates, and a report was submitted by its subordinates on 15-9-1976 disclosing the proposed respondents to be entitled to represent the estate of the Proprietor of the 1st defendant-firm. Accordingly, on the next day viz. , on 16-9-1976 an application to bring the legal representatives of the proprietor of the firm has been filed. Thus there is no delay caused on their part and the delay, if any, occasioned has been sufficiently explained. The lower Court has taken an unreasonably rigid view of the matter and thereby the lower Court committed material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction.

( 3 ) SRI Subbarayan, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, strenuously contended and asserted that the lower Court being a final Court on fact has considered the material placed before it and gave a finding of fact that sufficient cause has not been explained and therefore, the petition to condone the delay has been dismissed, and as a consequence, the other two petitions also have been dismissed. Thereby the lower Court did not commit any material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. I am unable to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is a statutory body and that it has got to act through its subordinates. It is not expected to know every day of the good health of the defendant all through. For the first time it became aware of the death of the Proprietor of the first defendant on 23-6-1976 when a memorandum was filed by the defendant s counsel in the Court. O. 22, R. 1 C. P. C. postulates that the death of the plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit to abate i