Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.—Heard Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents no. 9 and 19.

2. The matter has been coming up for passing orders on various Interlocutory Applications filed either on behalf of the appellants or the respondents.

3. At the outset, the Court would indicate that Interlocutory Application No. 4138 of 2018 and Interlocutory Application No. 24 of 2021 filed on behalf of respondent no. 9 have been taken up first for the reason that prayer has been made in the said Interlocutory Applications for holding that the present First Appeal has abated on account of death of respondents no. 8(i), 8(iii), 9, 23, 24, 29(c), 33 and 34 as per Interlocutory Application No. 4138 of 2018 and respondents no. 11, 26, 30(d), 32(ii) as also appellants no. 9 and 11 as per Interlocutory Application No. 24 of 2021.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 9 and 19 pressing the aforesaid Interlocutory Applications submitted that the abovenamed respondents died in the year 1999, 2010, 2006, 2016, 2005, 2016, 2010, 2015, 2021, 2017, 2020 and 2020 respectively, whereas the appellants no. 9 and 11 have also died but the date is now known to him.

5. Learned counsel submitted that for substituting the respondents no. 8(i), 8(iii), 9, 23, 24, 29(c), 33 and 34, Interlocutory Application No. 16 of 2019 has been filed on 06.02.2019, whereas for substituting the respondents no. 11, 26 and 30(d), Interlocutory Application No. 22 of 2021 has been filed and with regard to respondents no. 30(d) and 32(ii) Interlocutory Application No. 20 of 2021 has been filed whereas no application has been filed with regard to respondent no. 26 and appellants no. 9 and 11.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the delay is ranging from a year to 20 years and, thus, it shows absolute casualness on the part of the appellants in pursuing the appeal and the same suffers from willful delay and laches. It was submitted that even in the Interlocutory Applications filed seeking condonation of such delay no valid cause has been shown as the delay has also not been explained as is required for the entire period and only a vague statement has been made that such death was not in the knowledge of the appellants, which cannot be accepted since the appeal arises out of a partition suit and the parties being agnates, it cannot be believed that for such a long period of two decades, they would be unaware of the death having occurred of any of the parties, who are closely related to each other. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the law requiring such substitution to be made within 90 days of the death having occurred, the delay of so many years is not fit to be allowed. Further, it was submitted that as of now, the appeal itself has automatically stood abated and for setting aside the abatement even till date with regard to respondent no. 26 and appellants no. 9 and 11 there being no petition on record, on an overall view, the entire appeal should be held to have abated. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Majji Sannemma alias Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sirdevi and others, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260 [: 2022 (3) BLJ 156 (SC)], for the proposition that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judicially based on facts and circumstances of each case and sufficient cause cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is attributed to the party and further that even if it may harshly affect rights of a party it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by the statute. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Budh Ram vs. Bansi, (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 476, the relevant being at paragraphs no. 17 to 20, for the proposition that the abatement of appeal due to death of one respondent would lead to abatement against other respondents also, more so, in cases whe