G.S. Patel, J.

The Chamber Summons seeks to set aside the order of 13th February 2014 by which it was held that the Miscellaneous Petition abated on the death of the original revocation Petitioner. There is also a prayer for condonation of delay of 16 months and 29 days in filing this Chamber Summons and for impleadment of the heirs of the original deceased Petitioner.

2. The Affidavit in Support makes out no ground whatsoever for any such relief. There is no explanation for the delay. The original revocation Petitioner died on 28th May 2013. As the Affidavit in Support clearly demonstrates there were and are a large number of proceedings in various courts between the original revocation Petitioner, the Respondent and other members of their respective families.

3. In paragraph 4 of the Affidavit in Reply, the Respondent has set out in detail a tabulation of the various dates when the Miscellaneous Petition was listed. Of particular interest are the dates at Serial Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of this tabulation. On 10th June 2014, the matter was called before R.D. Dhanuka, J. The revocation Petitioner was not present or represented. The Court was informed by the Advocate on behalf of the Respondent that the Petitioner had passed away. It was on account of the absence of representation for the Petitioner that the matter was adjourned for a week. It was then listed on two further dates in June but did not reach. On 11th August 2014, the matter was listed. It reached. The revocation Petitioner was represented. The Court was again informed of the passing away of the revocation Petitioner. Learned Advocate for the present Applicants sought time to take instructions and it was on that basis that the matter was adjourned further.

4. The matter was then mentioned before me on 1st December 2014. I listed it for directions on 10th December 2014. It did not reach on that date. It was then mentioned again on 11th February 2015 after notice and was listed on 13th February 2015. On that day, the Petitioner was represented. On that day, it was not disputed that the revocation Petitioner had passed away on 28th May 2013. No application was even then presented for impleadment of the present Applicants. I, therefore, passed an order that the Miscellaneous Petition had abated and disposed of it in those terms. It is only thereafter, later that day, that the present application was filed.

5. It is to be noted that the original Petitioner and the present Applicants have all throughout been represented by the same Advocate.

6. The Affidavit in Support of the Chamber Summons, far from assisting the Applicants, actually damages their cause. In paragraph 3, the Applicants accept that they were bound to inform the Respondent and the Court of the death of the original Petitioner within 90 days. This was not done. The dates that I have noted above shows that this could have been done well in time.

7. In paragraph 4, the Applicants claimed that they were unaware of the present proceedings since these were being handled by the original Petitioner alone, although they knew of all other proceedings in Vadodara and Ahmedabad. Strangely in paragraph 4 it is said:

"It is only upon the above Miscellaneous Petition being listed on the board of this Hon'ble Court in the 2nd or 3rd week of December 2014 and upon receipt of the phone call from the Advocate of the deceased at Mumbai, the Petitioners came to know about the pendency of the present proceedings and thereupon took prompt steps to get them impleaded in the proceedings."

8. This clearly indicates that at least in December 2014, the Applicants and their Advocates were aware that an application was required to be made for impleadment. As I have noted no such application was made even when the matter was listed on 13th February 2015.

9. In a given case, where an Affidavit in Support makes out a case that the applicant had not the wherewithal or was on account of other circumstances constrained in some way from moving an appli