Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. By this order I would dispose of the two Applications IA No. 7379/2005 under Order 22 Rule 3' of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing on record the legal representatives of plaintiff No. 2, Col. Prithipal Singh Malik; who died on 29th April, 2003 due to cardiac arrest and IA No. 7380/2005, an - application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing IA No. 7379/2005.

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 32,18,800 being the balance sale consideration with interest@ 18% p.a. till realisation, a further relief for the recovery ofRs. llakh on account of damages, and for declaration / in relation to property No. 43, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. The plaintiffs along with their father were members of the HUF styled as 'Malik Mukhbain Singh HUF'. In that capacity, they were owners of property No. 43, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, which was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 6th December, 1948. The property was occupied by the family till the family partition took place on 31st March, 1981. The portions divided between the parties were duly shown in the site plan prepared by the parties at that time. Defendants No.1 to 8 entered into seven agreements of purchase with the plaintiffs and Malik Mukhbain Singh on 22nd April, 1985. The intending purchasers had agreed to sell part of the said lancl and the total area covered by different agreements to sell to defendants No.1 to 8 was 2969 sq. mts. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were not paying the balance sale consideration despite their repeated requests and defendants No.9 to 14 are the persons whom defendants No.1 to 8 conveyed their rights title and interest in the said property while defendants No. 15 to 23 are the person who are living in different portions of the said disputed property. The plaintiffs also claims to have served a notice dated 30th June, 1988 on the defendants and an insertion to this effect was also got published in the daily 'Statesman' dated 3rd July, 1988 and as such the defendants were not entitled to act on behalf to the plaintiff without completing their obligations in terms of the said agreement. The defendants having failed to pay the balance consideration to the extent of Rs. 32,18,800, the plaintiffs have filed this suit with the afore-stated reliefs.

3. The suit was contested and the defendants pray that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief and are not entitled to recover the said amount with interest @ 18% per annum, and that the defendants had not committed anyoreach of the terms of the agreement.

4. It may be noticed at this stage that during the course of hearing, the parties were negotiating for a settlement and it was also stated on behalf of the plaintiffs that they would be willing to execute a sale deed in favour of the defendants after receiving the balance sale consideration. It was at that " point of time that it was brought to the notice of the Court that plaintiff No. 2 had died during the pendency of the suit on 29th April, 2003 and on/or about 6th September, 2005 the applications under. consideration were filed by the plaintiffs.

5. In the application for condonation of delay it has been stated that Prithipal Singh died on 29th April, 2003 at Chandigarh due to cardiac arrest and power of attorney was given earlier to Daljeet Singh Malik, brother of the deceased, who was 80 years old and was quite unwell. He also suffered a heart attack and a problem with regard to Hernia. He was admitted to Apollo Hospital and then was operated upon under the advice of the doctors.

After operation he even lost his memory to some extent and was not able to communicate with his counsel and inform the correct position with regard to the death of the deceased. The other plaintiff, Mr. K.J.S Malik was living in Bombay since 1967 and had shifted to Chandigarh just couple of years back and was not in touch with the counsel. In fact, it was during the