(1) These two civil miscellaneous appeals are filed by the same individual, and arise out of OS No.261 of 1991, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. Hence, they are disposed of through common judgment. The relevant facts, that gave rise to the filing of the appeals, are as under :

(2) The appellant filed the suit for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 16.1.1988 against Ghorpade Radha Bai, the sole defendant, and impleaded as respondent No.1 in both the appeals. He pleaded that the sole defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property, a residential building, with open site, in Door No.25-7-33, Seethannapet, Vijayawada, for a, consideration of Rs.3,45,000/-. Advance of Rs.10,000/- is said to have been paid on the date of agreement. It was stated that though the appellant promised to pay the balance of consideration, and made several demands, the defendant did not fulfil her part of the obligation.

(3) The suit was filed on 3.6.1991. On the notice sent o the defendant, it was endorsed that she died on 31.3.1991. Thereupon the appellant filed IA No.6270 of 1991, under Order I Rule 10 CPC, with a prayer to implead the legal representatives of the sole defendant, as parties to the suit. The I.A. and the suit were coming up for hearing for quite a long time. On 18.6.1999, the trial Court dismissed the suit, as well as the IA No.6270 of 1991, for default.

(4) The appellant filed IA No.574 of 1999 under Order IX Rule 9 CPC with a prayer to set aside the order, dismissing the suit. IA No.575 of 1999 is similar application, for restoration of IA No.6270 of 1991. Through its orders dated 9.11.1999, the trial Court dismissed both the applications. Hence, these two appeals.

(5) Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court proceeded on the assumption that the suit abated, on account of the death of the sole defendant, and in that view of the matter, the dismissal thereof, was almost superfluous. He contends that the appellant was under the impression that the sole defendant was alive, and soon after he came to know about the death of the defendant, application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. He also submits that the suit and I.A., were pending in the trial Court, without any progress, for about eight years, and an occasional absence, of the Counsel for the appellant in the trial Court, must not have resulted in termination of the proceedings, for default. He places reliance upon certain decided cases.

(6) Sri T.S. Anand, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that, when the suit was filed against a dead person, any steps taken in it, were of no legal consequence. He contends that the suit was presented three months after the sole defendant died, and the vague cause of action, pleaded in the plaint, was without any basis. Learned Counsel further contends that even otherwise, the suit for specific performance, on the basis of an alleged payment of negligible amount, cannot be restored, at this length of time.

(7) The appellant instituted the suit against the sole defendant on 3.6.1991. It emerged that the defendant died on 31.3.1991 itself. Thereupon he took prompt steps to implead the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The record discloses that the l.A. was pending for about eight years, by the time the suit and the LA. came to be dismissed for default on 18.6.1999.

(8) In the order passed on the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC the trial Court discussed the circumstances under which, the suit came to be dismissed. A pausing observation was made to the effect that the suit has abated, on account of the failure of the appellant to take steps, to bring the legal representatives of the deceased-sole defendant, on record. Therefore, the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant cover, (a) the circumstances, that led to the dismissal of the suit and