The court's decision was based on the application of Order 22 Rule 4 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, which governs the abatement of appeals in the event of a party's death.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 28.12.2007 passed in Special Civil Suit No.79 of 2021 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Veraval.

2. The subject matter of the suit is a land bearing Survey No.57A of Village:Bhalpara, Tal:Veraval, Dist:Junagadh. The appellant before the Court is the original defendant against whom the respondent (original plaintiff) had filed suit in connection with the subject land. The Civil Judge had allowed the suit directing specific performance of the sale agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and further directions to the defendant to deposit an amount of Rs.51,000/-.

3. It appears that the judgment and order was a subject matter of challenge in the present appeal, wherein this Court while admitting the appeal in order dated 21.08.2008 had also passed a separate order in the Civil Application, wherein the appellant was directed to deposit an amount, which was received by the appellant from the respondent and such amount was to be deposited within a period of 4(Four) weeks. Similarly, the respondent was also directed to deposit an amount of Rs.51,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per-annum from the date of agreement to sale which comes to Rs.95,525/- which is deposited. On the basis of this and other conditions, the interim-relief was granted staying operation of the impugned judgment and order. In the same order, it was also observed that in case the applicant fails to deposit an amount as directed, the interim-relief granted would stand automatically vacated.

4. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the subsequent development, as the appellant herein failed to deposit an amount as directed by this Court, and therefore, the interim-relief thus, granted stood automatically vacated.

5. It appears that by the interim-direction, the appellant was required to deposit an amount of Rs.9 lacs (approx) which the appellant had failed. Though the interim-relief granted stood automatically vacated by way of abandon caution, the respondent herein moved a Civil Application No.2 of 2019 for vacating the interim-relief.

6. The Civil Application No.2 of 2019 came to be disposed of in favour of the respondent herein (original plaintiff) vide order dated 18.06.2019, wherein this Court had specifically observed that though the appellant was directed to deposit an amount way back on 28.01.2008, the appellant has chosen not to deposit such amount even after the period of almost 10 years. The Court, therefore, ordered the vacating of the interim relief.

7. It is on record that immediately after the impugned judgment and order, the respondent had filed Special Darkhast No.18 of 2009 on 14.10.2009, which was kept pending in view of filing of the present appeal and the conditional stay being granted. However, when no proceedings took place before Executive Court under the orders of the stay granted by this Court, the respondent had moved a separate application for vacating the interim-relief, as is mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. After the order dated 18.06.2019, wherein the interim-relief was vacated once-again the execution application was pursued by the respondent, however, in the meantime, it was found that the sole respondent-Virabhai Randhirbhai Parmar had expired on 01.05.2014, and therefore, on 16.06.2014, advocate on behalf of the respondent intimated the Registry of this Court as well as learned advocate for the appellant about the demise of the sole respondent.

7.1 The record of the Court would indicate that pursuant to such intimation given to the Registry of this Court by the learned advocate for the appellant in view of Order 22 Rule 10(a) submission was made and placed before this Court. The record also indicated that on 8 (Eight) occasions, the matter was adjourned from one date to another, however, no application was coming forth for bringing the legal heirs on record.

8. In view of Order 22 Rule 4(3), the appeal would