The First Appellate Court erred in interfering with the discretion exercised by the trial court in rejecting the application for substitution of legal representatives where the plaintiffs had made a false assertion that they were ignorant of the date of death of the deceased defendant and had not put forward any explanation for the delay in moving the application.

S.P. Srivastava, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by an order dated 7-12-1996 passed by the First Appellate Court whereunder allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the trial Court, rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 22, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code seeking to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of Mataprasad, the defendant No. 1 the said application has been granted, the proposed defendant has now approached this Court seeking reversal of the impugned order and restoration of the order of the trial Court.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant-applicant as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents and have also carefully perused the record.

3. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The suit giving rise to this revision had been filed by the plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 6 against Mataprasad, who was impleaded as defendant No. 1 and the Madhya Pradesh State Government through Collector, which had been impleaded as defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs claimed a declaratory decree to the effect that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were co-owners in possession of the agricultural holdings in dispute to the extent of half share and plaintiffs Nos. 3 to 6 were co-owners to the extent of l/4th share and were entitled to get their names recorded as such in the revenue papers in place of the name of the defendant, Mataprasad. The plaintiffs had alleged that Mataprasad was the real brother of Shriram and Ramswaroop, the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, and the real uncle of plaintiff No. 3 and plaintiffs Nos. 4, 5 were his nephews. The land in dispute was claimed to be coming down from the common ancestor but in the revenue record it stood recorded exclusively in the name of Mataprasad, showing him to be the sole owner thereof.

4. During the pendency of the suit an application was filed on 29-6-1992 by the present applicant, Ramadhar, bringing to the notice of the Court that he had come to know from the rumour spread over in the village that Shriram and Ramswaroop and others had filed a suit against his father, Mataprasad, who had died on 12-11-1989 but in spite of having full knowledge of the death of Mataprasad the plaintiffs had not taken care to bring on record his heirs and legal representatives with the result that the suit stood abated and could not proceed, therefore, the same may be dismissed.

5. Thereafter, on 21-7-1992, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order 22, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code praying for bringing on record Ramadhar son of Mataprasad and Manila Rammurty d/o Mataprasad as his heirs and legal representatives asserting that the plaintiffs had come to know from the application of Ramadhar dated 29-6-1992 that Mataprasad, the sole defendant had died on 12-11-1989.

6. The aforesaid application was contested by Ramadhar asserting that the plaintiffs had full knowledge of the death of Mataprasad which had taken place on 12-11-1989. The plaintiffs were near relatives of Mataprasad and resided in the same village where Mataprasad resided. It was also asserted that they had attended the funeral ceremony of Mataprasad. It was further asserted that in the revenue records the name of Ramadhar had been substituted in place of Mataprasad. It was further asserted that the application was grossly belated and there was no explanation for the inordinate delay in moving the application.

7. In support of the objection Ramadhar filed his own affidavit sworn on 3-11-1992. In this affidavit it had been asserted that Mataprasad, the defendant, and the plaintiff Shriram and Ramswaroop were real brothers. It was also asserted that the plaintiffs, Rambhavesh and Suresh and Vinod were the successor-in-interest of Rameshwardayal, the fourth son of Lajjaram, the father of applicants Nos. 1 and 2. It was asserted that the plaintiffs had deliberately omitted to move the application for substitution to brin