JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, whereby he dismissed the application filed for bringing on record the legal representatives of respondent No. 8 Ajit Singh after condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement.

The facts lie in a narrow compass.

2. The appellants had filed Civil Appeal No. 46/2000 against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 181 of 1992 by learned Senior Sub Judge on 8.12.1999. This appeal was dismissed in default on 25.08.2005, for want of appearance of the appellants or their counsel.

3. The appellants filed an application for restoration. However, before the same could be taken up, one of the respondents Smt. Shanti Devi died on 12.11.2007 and accordingly her name was ordered to be struck off vide order dated 31.07.2009. However, in the interregnum, even respondent No. 8 Ajit Singh died on 11.06.2007 and thereafter an application was filed by the appellants for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 8 Ajit Singh and condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement.

4. The application was contested by the respondents on the ground that the appellants were well aware about the death of respondent No. 8 Ajit Singh and yet had not taken steps for bringing on record his legal representatives.

5. The learned Appellate Court on 31.07.2009, famed the following issues:-

1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing application under Order 22 Rule 4, 9 (2) CPC to bring on record the LRs of deceased respondent No. 8 Ajit Singh?OPA

2. If issue No. 1 proved, whether Santosh Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Nirmla Devi sons and widow of deceased Ajit Singh, r/o village Bhambla, PO Bhambla, Tehsil Baldwara, District Mandi, are the LRs of deceased respondent No. 8 Ajit Singh?OPA

3. Relief.

6. Issue No. 1 was decided against the appellants by holding that the application for restoration had abated on account of the death of Ajit Singh, whereas Issue No. 2 was held to have become redundant on account of the application itself having been dismissed. In view of the findings on Issue No. 1, the petition filed by the appellants under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was held to have been abated.

7. Assailing these findings by filing present appeal, it is contended by Shri Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are totally perverse and therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

8. Whereas, Shri G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate, would vehemently oppose the prayer made by the appellants by contending that the order passed by the learned Court below is in accordance with law, therefore, needs to be upheld.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

9. It is more than settled that in matters of the instant kind the Courts normally are required to adopt liberal approach specially while dealing with the application for condonation of delay as ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and refusal to condone delay can result in an meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice being defeated. It is clearly settled that the approach in such matter should not be a pandentic but the doctrine that is to be kept in mind is that the matter has to be dealt in a rational commonsense, pragmatic manner and cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred over the technical consideration.

10. However, at the same time, the Court is also required to see whether there are lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay. It has also to take into consideration the conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence while approaching the Court. It