PARTHA SARTHY, J.:–

I.A. no.5153 of 2013 (renumbered as I.A. no.3 of 2013), I.A. no.5821 of 2017, I.A. no.6844 of 2017 (renumbered as I.A. no.5 of 2017), I.A. no.6 of 2021, I.A. no.7 of 2021, I.A. no.8 of 2021 and I.A. no.9 of 2021

Heard Mr. Shri Nandan Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. J.S. Arora, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents on the above applications.

2. I.A. no.5153 of 2013 was filed on 30.7.2013 on behalf of respondent nos.1(i), 1(ii) and 1(iv) praying that an order be passed regarding abatement of the appeal due to nonsubstitution of the legal heirs and representatives of respondent no.1(i) Lakshmi Narayan Gupta, respondent no.1(iv) Ashok Kumar and respondent no.1(vi) Sumitra Devi. It was stated therein that respondent no.1(i) died on 30.1.2001, respondent no.1(iv) died on 31.10.2011 and respondent no.1(vi) died on 18.2.2012. More than 90 days having passed since their deaths and the appellants not having taken steps for substitution of the said respondents by their legal representatives, it was prayed that appropriate orders be passed that the appeal had abated as against the deceased respondents and appeal itself had become incompetent.

3. I.A. no.5821 of 2017 has been filed on behalf of the appellants under Order XXII Rule 4 read with Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 5 of the Limitation Act praying therein for substituting the heirs of respondent no.1(iv) Ashok Kumar on account of his death after setting aside abatement and condoning the delay in filing of the substitution petition.

4. I.A. no.6844 of 2017 was filed on behalf of the respondent no.1(ii) Ganga Prasad Gupta on 14.9.2017 praying therein to dismiss the appeal by holding that the same had abated on account of non-substitution of legal representatives of respondent no.1(vi) Sumitra Devi who died on 18.2.2012.

5. I.A. no.7 of 2021 has been filed on behalf of appellant no.3 on 17.2.2021 under Order XXII Rule 1 and 2 read with Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying therein for substitution of the heirs of appellant no.1 and appellant no.2 on account of their death after setting aside the abatement. Further, I.A. no.6 of 2021 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing of the substitution petition for substitution of appellant nos.1 and 2.

6. I.A. no.8 of 2021 has been filed on behalf of the appellant no.3 on 26.3.2021 under Order XXII Rule 3 and 4 read with Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying therein for substitution of the heirs of respondent no.1(i) Lakshmi Narayan Gupta and respondent no.1(vi) Smt. Sumitra Devi on account of their death. Further, I.A. no.9 of 2021 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing of the substitution petition filed for substitution of heirs of respondent no.1(i) and respondent no.1(vi).

I.A. no.5821 of 2017

7. The instant application under Order XXII Rule 4 read with Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the appellants praying for substitution of the heirs of respondent no.1(iv) Ashok Kumar after setting aside the abatement and condoning the delay in filing of the substitution petition.

8. It is submitted by learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants that the instant appeal arising out of the suit for specific performance of contract was preferred against the sole respondent Pavitri Devi. On the death of Pawitri Devi, by order dated 17.4.2013, the heirs of Pawitri Devi including respondent no.1(iv) Ashok Kumar were substituted in her place. On appeal notice being issued, in the service report, he was reported to be dead. In view of the service report, by order dated 17.9.2014, the learned Joint Registrar allowed time for filing substitution petition for substitution of the heirs of Ashok Kumar. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant no.2 who had been doing pairvi in the case was informed by hi