( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the order dated 19th october,2001of the Learned Single judge allowing applications for condonation of delay and substitution of legal representatives of deceased Karta of an HUF and another defendant, who was also a coparcener and where other defendants were the HUF and other coparceners, one of them being also the son of deceased karta.

( 2 ) THE respondents had filed a petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act,1940 against M/s k. D. Churiwala and sons HUF through its Karta M. P. Churiwala who was defendant no. 6 in the petition. Besides the said two defendants, the other members and coparceners of said huf, Shri K. P. Churiwala, Mr. R. K. Churiwala, Mr. Sanjay churiwala and Mr. Nikhil Churiwala were also impleaded as defendants in the petition. Shri Sanjay Churiwala is the son of Shri M. P. Churiwala, deceased karta.

( 3 ) THE addresses of all the defendants in the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act,1940 were given as 32-J, New Road, Alipore, Calcutta. During the pendency of the petition, on 7th September,1995 the counsel for the defendants/appellants intimated that Shri m. P. Churiwala defendant no. 6 in the petition, karta of huf M/s K. D. Churiwala, and defendant no. 2 Shri k. P. Churiwala have died. The counsel for the defendants, however, did not disclose the dates of their death. There after petition was listed before the Court on 19th october,1995; 9th February,1996; 18th March,1996 and 21st may, 1996 and the applications for substitution of legal representative of above stated deceased defendants was filed 21st May,1996 along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation act, 1963 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil procedure. The said applications were contested by the respondents but were allowed by order dated 19th october,2001 by the learned Single Judge and delay in filing the application for substitution of legal representatives of the deceased defendants was condoned and the legal representatives of the deceased defendants were substituted subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2000 by the respondents.

( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge held that even the defendants counsel was not aware of exact date of death of the defendant no. 6 and defendant no. 2 and he had merely informed that the said defendants had died. He held that the respondents/plaintiffs were not aware of the death of said defendants nor the plaintiffs were aware of the legal representatives of the deceased defendants. He held that once it was established that there was difficulty in ascertaining the names of the legal representatives, it was obvious that it must be taken that there was sufficient ground for condonation of delay in ascertaining the same. The Learned single Judge relied on AIR 1975 Delhi 104, Satnam Singh and anr. Vs mohinder Singh and ors where it was held that when one of the respondents had died during the pendency of the appeal and this fact was not even known to the counsel there was sufficient ground for condonation of delay and for substitution of legal representatives. Reliance was also placed by the learned Single Judge on AIR 1979 Delhi 49, Kartar Singh and ors Vs Jowla Singh and Union of India vs Ram Charan (deceased) through legal representatives, air 1964 SC 215.

( 5 ) THE appellants, R. K. Churiwala, Sanjay Churiwala and Nikhil Churiwala have impugned the order of the learned Single Judge on the grounds that on 7th september,1995, it was intimated that the said defendants had died and thereafter on various dates the counsel for the respondents who appeared before the Joint Registrar did not intimate the steps taken by the respondents to ascertain about the legal representatives of deceased defendants. According to appellants the `various efforts alleged to have been made by the respondents were blatant lies and no particulars of various efforts alleged to have been made by the respondents were disclosed. The appellants have