( 1 ) THE plaintiffs have filed this suit for specific performance of contract for sale of a property and in the alternative for recovery of damages. The suit is valued at Rs. 4,90,000. 00 and a court fee of Rs. 7,126. 40p has been paid. The suit was filed in the year 1980. Since then it has been vigorously prosecuted and contested.

( 2 ) THE defendants No. 1 and 2 have been residing in U. K. It is their case in the written statement that they are British passport holders. On 16th July, 1991, the defendant s counsel delivered an information under Order 22 Rule 10 A Civil Procedure Code of Davinder Singh Mehta, the defendant No. 1, having expired on 24th May, 1991. No certificate of death was filed.

( 3 ) ON 29th July, 1991, the counsel for the plaintiff gathered information in the Court, at the time of hearing, that the defendant No. 1, Davinder Singh Mehta had died in U. K. Counsel for defendant No. 1 was directed by the Court to file the death certificate on or before 28. 8. 91. That was not done.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the facts stated in the application dated 26. 8. 91, (I. A. No. 9594/91 under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC), the plaintiffs made diligent enquiries in the neighbourhood where defendant had last resided in Delhi and they could ascertain the names of the wife and a son only of the deceased. The application for substitution was filed, as already stated, on 26. 8. 91.

( 5 ) ON 2. 11. 92 IA No-13426/92 has been filed by plaintiffs under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in moving application under Order 22 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code stating the facts noticed herein- above.

( 6 ) ON 2. 11. 92 IA 13436/92 has also been filed styled as an amendment ap- plication under Order 6 Rule 17 readwith Order 22 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code which seeks to correctly describe the name of the wife of the deceased defendant which as mentioned earlier in IA 9594/91 was not correct.

( 7 ) ON 2. 11. 92 another IA 13437/92 was also filed seeking direction to the defendants to disclose the names of other LRs of deceased defendant No. 1. Only on 7. 8. 93 the defendant No. 2 furnished the addresses of the wife and a son of the deceased.

( 8 ) ON 11. 7. 94 IA 7946/94 has been filed styled as one under Section 151 CPC whereby the name of one more son of the deceased is sought to be brought on record.

( 9 ) ON 21. 3. 93, the Court had directed the counsel for the proposed legal representatives of defendant No. 1 to disicose on affidavit the names of all the legal representatives of defendant No. 1 and their addresses. That order was complied with on 21. 3. 94. It was disclosed that there was one more son of the deceased defendant No. 1.

( 10 ) THE prayers made in the applications filed on behalf of the plaintiff have been vehemently opposed on behalf of the proposed legal representatives submitting that the first application itself was filed beyond 90 days of the date of death of the deceased without being accompanied by a prayer for setting-aside abatement under Order 22 Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code and without an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and so the application for impleadment of LRs was barred by time and was liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel has further submitted that a prayer for impleadment is distinct from a prayer for setting aside abatement and application for one cannot be treated as an application for the other. Reliance is placed on Madan Naik and Ors. VS. Mst. Hansubala Devi and Ors. , AIR 1983 SC 676; Durgalal VS. Asharafilal (Decd) and Ors. , AIR 1973 Raj 332; Kandanmal Uttamchand VS. Jwala Prasad and Anr. , AIR 1963 MP 183 and Kaushal Asaf Khan VS. Hari Singh Gopi Chand, AIR 1940 Pesh 39. It is also submitted that the conduct of the plaintiffs has been one of gross negligence as they have never been diligent.

( 11 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applications filed by the plaintiffs deserve to be allowed and the