KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.: - Heard the advocates for the petitioner and respondents for 1(a) to 1(f) and 2, 3 and 4. Neither the respondents No.5 to 10 are present nor anyone to represent them. Notice was issued for final disposal of the petition at the admission stage. Failure on the part of the respondents No. 5 to 10 to appear before the Court, apparently discloses that they are not inter:sted in contesting the proceedings.

2. The petitioner challenges the Order dated 15th December, 2004 passed by the Civil Judge S.D., Margao in Special Civil Suit No. 74/1999/ III. By the impugned order the trial Court has dismissed the applications for setting aside of abatement, condonation of delay in bringing the L.Rs. as well as the application for bringing the L.Rs. on record consequent to the death of defendant No.5 in the suit. The applications have been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to show sufficient cause for not filing the application for bringing the L.Rs. of defendant No. 5 within the stipulated period of 90 days from the date of death of defendant No.5.

3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioner has filed the suit for declaration and dissolution of the partnership and accounts. During the pendency of the said suit, the defendant No.5 expired on 2nd December, 2003. On 17 February, 2004 the Advocate who was appearing for the deceased defendant, brought the said fact of death of defendant No. 5 to the notice of the Court. On 23 March, 2004 the petitioner filed the above referred three applications namely for setting aside of abatement, for condonation of delay and for bringing the legal representatives on record. The applications were objected to by the respondent by filing their reply on 28 April, 2004. By the impugned order, after hearing the parties, the trial Court dismissed the applications.

4. Placing reliance in the decision in the matter of (Veena R. Rodkarv. Rukmini wd/o Vasudeo Narayan and others)1, reported in 1992(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 501: 1992(1) Mh.L.J.

606, (Vasant Pandu alias Pandurang Binuatkar and another v. Shankar Dhendu Ghole and another)2, reported in 1996( 1) Mah.L.R. 11 and (Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and others v. Gobardhan Sao and others)3, reported in A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 1201, the learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioner submitted that though the parties are close relations, the Advocate for the deceased defendant informed the Court about the death of the said defendant only on 17 February, 2004 in terms of the provisions of law under Order 22, Rule 10-A of C.P.C. and thereafter the petitioner filed the application for bringing the L.Rs. on record. Considering the fact that the provisions comprised under Order 22 of C.P.C. relates to the procedure for continuation of the suit on the death of the party or parties thereto, those provisions are to be interpreted liberally and considering the facts of the case, there was nothing on record to disclose any intentional delay on the part of the petitioner in bringing the L.Rs. on record and therefore the trial Court ought not to have adopted a hyper technical approach in the matter.

5. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, placing reliance in the decision of (Doddappa Maritammappa Basaput and another v. Erappa Mudakappa Navalli)4, and others reported in A.I.R. 1982 Karnataka 191 submitted that the obligation of the Advocate for the deceased party which arises under Order 22, Rule 10-A cannot by itself extend the period of limitation nor it has anything to do with the steps which the plaintiff is bound to take in terms of Order 22, Rule 4 C.P.C. to f bring the L.Rs. of deceased defendant on record within the stipulated period. He further submitted that the decisions of the learned Single Judges in Veena Rodkars case and in Binuatkars case are clearly distinguishable on facts and the same do not lay down the proposition of law which is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the petit