( 1 ) CIVIL Application No. 6801 of 2005 is an application by a transferee pendente lite for substitution on record in place of deceased respondent namely, Thakor Bachuji Maganji, Civil Applications No. 9715 of 2005, 9716 of 2005 and 9717 of 2005 are applications seeking condonation of delay, setting aside the abatement and for substitution of the legal representative of deceased respondent Thakor Bachuji Maganji.

( 2 ) IT is to be seen from the records that after certain land belonging to Thakor Bachuji Maganji were acquired, an award was made somewhere in the year 1991, and Thakor Bachuji Maganji being dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer asked for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

( 3 ) DURING pendency of the land acquisition proceedings, on 1. 8. 1995 by execution of a sale deed, said Thakor Bachuji Maganji conveyed all his right, title and interest in favour of Prabhodchandra Jayantilal Patel and Divyesh Prabhodchandra Patel. It is not in dispute before us that in the said sale deed executed on 1. 8. 1995, the seller/vendor did not reserve any right unto him or did not enter into any covenant with the transferee that the vendor shall continue with the land acquisition proceedings, and whatever amount would be received by the vendor shall be received in the interest of vendees and shall be paid to them.

( 4 ) IT is also to be mentioned that pendency of the reference proceedings were not reflected in the said sale deed. Mr. Shital R. Patel, learned counsel for the applicants submit that, it was an oral understanding between the parties that vendor Thakor Bachuji Maganji shall continue with the reference proceedings and whatever amount he receives would be paid to the vendees. From this statement, it would at least appear that though the fact of reference proceedings was not mentioned in the sale deed but was brought to the notice of the vendees.

( 5 ) DESPITE execution of the sale deed in favour of Prabhodchandra Jayantilal Patel and Divyesh Prabhodchandra Patel, said Thakor Bachuji Maganji did not bring the fact to the notice of the reference court nor asked the Court that since after execution of the sale deed he is left with no right, title or interest in the property or compensation and as such the vendees may be substituted by the court under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC.

( 6 ) IT is also worth noticing that the vendees namely, Prabhodchandra Jayantilal Patel and Divyesh Prabhodchandra Patel did not make any application before the trial court for their substitution in view of the said alienation. The trial court being ignorant of the sale deed allowed said Thakor Bachuji Maganji to conduct the proceedings and ultimately made its award on 11. 7. 1998. The State Government which also did not know about the transfer and alienation, being aggrieved by the judgment and award made by the trial court filed the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against Thakor Bachuji Maganji.

( 7 ) IT appears that during pendency of this appeal, the present applicants made an application for their substitution on record but the application was rejected with liberty in favour of the vendees, namely Prabhodchandra Jayantilal Patel and Divyesh Prabhodchandra Patel that they may get their right settled by decree of competent court. Immediately thereafter the vendees filed a civil suit against Thakor Bachuji Maganji and secured a decree in Special Civil Suit No. 213 of 2002 from the Court of learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Gandhinagar, for recovering the amount of Rs. 1,85,224/- from the deceased claimant (since Thakor Bachuji Maganji had expired) and one Amrutbhai Ramtuji Thakor. After obtaining the said decree, the applicants Prabhodchandra Jayantilal Patel and Divyesh Prabhodchandra Patel have again filed application for their substitution.

( 8 ) AFTER gaining knowledge of the death of Thakor Bachuji Maganji,