( 1 ) THIS M. C. A. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer for setting aside the abatement of S. C. A. No. 4488 of 1984. Further prayer has been to bring on record the respondents No. 1/1 to 1/5 as heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent Ramanbhai Parbatbhai Padhiyar.

( 2 ) THE S. C. A. No. 4488 of 1984 has come up for hearing before this Court on 1. 8. 96, on which date the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant was present. The sole respondent therein had expired and his heirs and legal representatives were not brought on record and as such, the Special Civil Application was ordered to be dismissed as having abated. However, liberty has been granted to the petitioner-applicant to file application for setting aside of the abatement and for bringing on record, the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent, and upon filing of the same, it was ordered that the same will be considered on merits in accordance with law.

( 3 ) IN this M. C. A. , the applicant stated that the sole respondent expired on 26th October 1991. After obtaining the death certificate and the revenue entry No. 26/86 dated 17. 2. 92, the applicant came to know that the respondents No. 1/1 to 1/5 are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent in S. C. A and this application came to be filed before this Court on 4. 9. 96 for grant of the prayers aforesaid. The delay in filing this application has been given that after dismissal of the S. C. A. , the applicants advocate has informed the applicant by his letter dated 7. 8. 96 and thereafter the applicant gathered information regarding death and other things of respondent and filed this application as early as possible. On this ground, condonation of delay has been prayed for.

( 4 ) THE respondents have filed a detailed reply to this M. C. A. In the reply, they have denied that the applicant came to know of death of sole respondent in S. C. A. only on receipt of the letter of their counsel as well as on obtaining a copy of entry No. 26/86 dated 17. 2. 92. It has further been stated that the applicant has deliberately made this statement of fact in the application with a view to mislead the Court. In between the parties, a cognate proceedings bearing Tenancy-D-Revision-Case No. 145/93 took place before the Collector (Land Reforms), Vadodara, and the said proceedings were initiated by application instituted by Bhikhabhai Ramanbhai, proposed respondent No. 1/2 herein. In those proceedings the applicant herein was a party and as such the respondents stated that it has come to the notice of applicant of death of respondent in S. C. A. in the year 1993 itself. But still no steps have been taken to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives within reasonable time.

( 5 ) THE applicant filed affidavit-in-rejoinder and therein it has been stated that merely because the respondent has filed the aforesaid proceedings before the Mamlatdar in the year 1993, it cannot be said that the person who was dealing in the year 1993 was aware of the fact that there was a petition pending since 1984 in this Court. Further affidavit-in-rejoinder has been filed on behalf of original petitioner in S. C. A. and a plea has been taken that `kothari go on changing and as such it is not correct to say on the part of respondents that they had knowledge of death of respondent. Further affidavit has also been filed by Shri Y. B. Trivedi, on behalf of applicant.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant contended that in the matter of substitution of heirs and legal representatives, liberal approach has to be taken. The Court should decide the matter, as far as possible, on merits and genuine claim of the applicant should not be denied only on the ground that heirs and legal representatives were not brought on record within reasonable time. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant made reference to certain decision of Honble Supreme Court as