ORDER :

G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.

1. IA No. 2 of 2021 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 58 days in filing the application for setting aside the order dated 06.11.2020 and for restoring the second appeal. IA No. 3 of 2021 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 06.11.2020 and to restore the second appeal.

2. IA No. 4 of 2021 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 3,066 days in filing the application for bringing on record the LRs. of deceased/appellant No. 1. IA No. 5 of 2021 is filed seeking to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of appellant No. 1, who died on 16.03.2012. IA No. 6 of 2021 is filed to bring on record the LRs. of deceased/appellant No. 1 as appellant Nos. 3 to 6. IA No. 7 of 2021 is filed by proposed appellant No. 5 seeking permission to represent appellant Nos. 3, 4 and 6 as their Power of Attorney.

3. IA No. 8 of 2021 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 730 days in filing the application for bringing on record the LRs. of deceased/appellant No. 2 as appellant Nos. 7 to 10. IA No. 9 of 2021 is filed seeking to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of appellant No. 2, who died on 05.09.2018. IA No. 10 of 2021 is filed to bring on record the LRs. of deceased/appellant No. 2 as appellant Nos. 7 to 10 and IA No. 11 of 2021 is filed by appellant No. 7 seeking permission to represent appellant Nos. 8 to 10 as their Power of Attorney.

4. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners/appellants as well as the learned Counsel for respondents. Perused the record.

5. It is pertinent to mention that initially, the suit was filed for perpetual injunction, which was being dismissed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs have preferred appeal and the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and passed decree in favour of the plaintiffs. Now, the defendants have filed the present second appeal.

6. The entire case of the appellants/defendants is that the 1st appellant and the 2nd appellant, who are related to each other, are the owners and possessors of Acs. 4-36 gts. of land in Sy. No. 161/A situated at Kardanoor Village of Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District, having purchased the same from one A. Surya Reddy vide registered sale deed dated 19.12.1995, bearing Document No. 5661/1995. The said Surya Reddy has alienated the same with the participation of his elder son A. Venkat Reddy, to the appellants under an unregistered agreement of sale dated 25.05.1982 after receiving the sale consideration and also delivered physical possession of land to them and further executed registered General Power of Attorney to the appellants on 02.06.1982 and the appellants, being the Attorneys of A. Surya Reddy, executed the registered sale deed on 19.12.1995.

7. It is the further contention of the petitioners in LA Nos. 4 to 7 and 8 to 11 of 2021 that appellant No. 1/A Narasimha Reddy and appellant No. 2/V. Raghuma Reddy died on 16.03.2012 and 05.09.2018 respectively, leaving behind their legal representatives i.e., the petitioners/proposed appellants herein and that being the legal heirs, they were not aware of the litigation and it has come to their knowledge only on 09.01.2021 when the respondent alongwith his associates have come to the property to dispossess them and the other purchasers alleging that he had judgment in his favour. It is also the specific plea of the petitioners (in all the interlocutory applications) that they were not aware about any proceedings either in the suit or in the appeal, whatsoever, whether pending or disposed of and after coming to their knowledge, they preferred these interlocutory applications.

8. In order to support his contentions, the learned Counsel for petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in The Commissioner, Mysore Urban-Development Authority v. S.S. Sarvesh, wherein, their Lordships have held in Paras 19 to 22 as under:

"19. Indeed, this case reminds us of the subtle observations of the learned