Ranjit Singh, Chairperson.—Through its order dated 16.8.2013, the Tribunal below has disposed off 10 interim applications (I.A.s.). The Appellant is aggrieved against the order passed in I.A. No. 1067/2012 and has accordingly filed this Appeal only to challenge that part of the order. I.A. No. 1067/2012 was filed by the Respondent No.4 for recall/review of the order dated 22.8.2012 whereby substitution application (I.A. No. 10/2011) filed by the Bank more than 5 years after the death of Defendant Nos. 2 and 6 had been allowed. The main ground of attack by the said Respondent to seek review /recall of the order dated 22.8.2012 passed by the Tribunal below was that there was a delay of 2000 days which had not been explained by the Respondent Bank and, therefore, the suit would stand abated. As per the Appellant, the application seeking condonation of delay was pending when the application for review was filed and had not been decided by the Tribunal below while allowing substitution application. He would contend that the liability of Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 being guarantors/mortgagors was joint and several, the whole suit would abate in view of the law laid down in the case of