Delay in filing for substitution of legal representatives requires sufficient cause, which was not demonstrated by the appellant, leading to rejection of her applications.

1. Heard on IA No. 07 which is a repeat application under O.22 R.4 of CPC for substitution of legal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 2, 3 (a) and 5 and IA No 08, application under S.5 of Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under O.22, R. 4 of CPC.

2. Notices on these applications were directed to be issued to the legal representatives of the deceased respondents 2, 3 (a) and 5. On receipt of notice, counsel for the proposed respondents 2, 3 (a) and 5 entered appearance before this Court in respect of the sustaining of IA Nos. 7 and 8 and vehemently opposed the said IAs and stressed hard for their rejection.

3. Before deciding the two IAs, it is necessary to narrate the facts leading to the second appeal and subsequent filing of the IAs in nutshell.

4. By way of the instant second appeal the appellants who were the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 before the Trial Court have challenged the judgment and decree dated 04/08/1998 passed by the second Additional District Judge, Jagdalpur in Civil Appeal No 67 - A / 97. By way of the said judgment Judgment the First Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 04.10.1997 passed by third Civil Judge Class II, Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No 65 - A / 96.

5. The respondents 1 to 6 were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court and had filed the suit for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession over the suit land measuring 16.95 acres situated in village Chokawada, Tehsil Jagdalpur.

6. The Trial Court, after pleadings were completed and evidences were recorded, on due consideration of the evidences that have come before the Court below vide its judgment dated 04.10.1997 allowed the suit of the plaintiffs and passed the decree holding that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession of the said suit land much before 1967 and as such they have perfected the title over the suit land.

7. The said judgment dated 04/10/1997 passed by the Trial Court was further challenged by the appellant / defendants by filing a civil appeal (first appeal) before the Second Additional District Judge which was registered as Civil Appeal No67 - A / 97.

8. After considering the contentions put forth by the appellant / defendants, the first Appellate Court also while rejecting the first appeal preferred by the defendants held that the Trial Court has not in any manner committed an error while deciding the civil suit in favour of the plaintiffs and accordingly, the First Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 04/08/1998 dismissed the first appeal preferred by the appellant / defendants.

9. It is the said judgment dated 04/08/1998 passed by the First Appellate Court which is subjected to challenge in the instant second appeal.

10. This Court vide its order dated 20/09/2006 admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law:
"Whether in view of the admitted fact that a compromise decree was passed in the earlier civil suit No. 13 - A / 1967 and the plaintiffs / respondents continued to remain in possession as per the said compromise decree, the subsequent civil suit filed by the plaintiffs on the basis of adverse possession could be decreed by the Trial Court and the plea of adverse possession was available to the plaintiffs."

11. However, during pendency of the second appeal before this Court, appellant No1 expired and appellant No 2 moved IA No 2757/06 for deleting the name of appellant No.1 from the array of the parties which was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 20/09/2006 and as per the Court order dated 20/09/2006, notices were