The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance substantial justice with technical considerations, emphasizing the importance of delivering justice in a pragmatic manner.

The revision petitioners/petitioners/appellants 1, 3 to 9 have filed C.R.P.No.2250 of 2009 as against the order dated 19.03.2009 in I.A.No.23 of 2008 in A.S.No.19 of 2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Tiruvallur in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 218 days in filing an application to restore the appeal A.S.No.19 of 2003 to file.

2. The revision petitioners/petitioners/appellants 1, 3 to 9 have filed C.R.P.No.2251 of 2009 as against the order dated 19.03.2009 in dismissing the I.A.No.25 of 2008 in A.S.No.19 of 2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Tiruvallur filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 294 days in filing the application to bring the proposed parties as legal representatives of the deceased respondent/decree holder on record.

3. The revision petitioners/petitioners/appellants 1, 3 to 9 have filed C.R.P.No.2252 of 2009 as against the order dated 19.03.2009 in unnumbered I.A.No. Of 2008 in A.S.No.19 of 2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Tiruvallur in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 19 of Civil Procedure Code to restore the appeal which has been dismissed for default on 05.07.2007.

4. The revision petitioners/petitioners/appellants have filed C.R.P.No.2253 of 2009 as against the order dated 19.03.2009 in unnumbered I.A.No. Of 2008 in A.S.No.19 of 2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Tiruvallur in dismissing the application filed under Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code praying to set aside the abatement of the appeal.

5. The revision petitioners/petitioners/appellants have filed C.R.P.No.2254 of 2009 as against the order dated 19.03.2009 in unnumbered I.A.No. Of 2008 in A.S.No.19 of 2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Tiruvallur in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners to bring on record the proposed parties as legal representatives of the deceased respondent/decree holder for final adjudication of the appeal.

6. Aggrieved against the orders so passed in I.A.No.23 of 2008, I.A.No.25 of 2008 and three unnumbered I.As. of 2008 by the learned Sub Judge, Tiruvallur, the revision petitioners have projected these revision petitions before this Court.

7. The revision petitioners in I.A.No.23 of 2008 has inter alia averred that as against the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Tiruvallur dated 13.04.1998 passed in O.S.No.801 of 1982, they have preferred the appeal A.S.No.19 of 2003 along with Bala Xavier (since dead) and that the sole deceased respondent Alphonsa filed E.P.No.50 of 2001 before the Executing Court for delivery and during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent Alphonsa expired and that this has been informed to the petitioners counsel about the factum of death of the respondent and therefore, the Court has been pleased to order steps to be taken for the deceased respondent and on 25.03.2008 the Amin of the lower Court has come to the suit property stating that the warrant has been entrusted to him to effect delivery of the suit property but he went away stating that he will take the assistance of the police while effecting delivery and they rushed to Tiruvallur to met their counsel and only thereafter, they have come to know that steps to bring the proposed parties as legal representatives of the deceased respondent have not been taken and resultantly, the appeal has been dismissed on 05.07.2007 and they have no knowledge about the dismissal of the appeal A.S.No.19 of 2003 and that they have changed a counsel and filed an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code questioning the executability of the decree passed by the trial Court and since they have no knowledge about the dismissal of the appeal on 05.07.2007. But by way of abandon caution they have been advised to file the present I.A.No.23 of 2008 and in that process, there has occasioned a delay of 218 days in filing the a