ORDER

CM No. 6593/2025

1 This is an application moved by respondents No. 1 to 6 and 8 to 11 seeking dismissal of the appeal as having abated on account of the death of respondent No. 7, Mohd. Ashraf, son of Ahad Buhroo, resident of Mutalhama, Tehsil and District Kulgam. It is submitted that during the pendency of the present Civil Second Appeal, i.e., CSA No. 08/2013, one of the respondents, namely Mohd. Ashraf, respondent No. 7 herein, died on 21.03.2020. The appellants, being residents of the same village, had knowledge about the death of the deceased respondent, yet failed to file an application for substitution of his legal heirs within the statutory period. Hence, the application for dismissal of the appeal as having abated.

CM No. 1407/2026

2 This is an application by the appellants seeking condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the application for setting aside of the abatement of the appeal. It is submitted that the appellants acquired knowledge about the death of deceased Mohd. Ashraf, i.e., respondent No. 7, only when the respondents other than respondent No. 7 filed CM No. 6593/2025. Immediately thereafter, inquiries were made to ascertain the details of the legal heirs of the deceased respondent, besides those mentioned in CM No. 6593/2025, which obviously consumed considerable time in view of the strained relations between the parties. It is further pleaded that the learned counsel who was engaged to argue the Civil Second Appeal, Mr. Altaf Haqani, remained out of the country w.e.f. the month of November, 2025 till the month of February, 2026, and since the records of the case were with him, immediate steps could not be taken to file the application for substitution of legal heirs of respondent No. 7 and for seeking setting aside of the abatement of the appeal.

3 Respondents No. 1 to 6 and 8 to 11 have objected to the application seeking condonation of delay. It is submitted by the respondents that it is not true that the appellants acquired knowledge about the death of respondent No. 7 only when CM No. 6593/2025 was filed. The appellants had knowledge about the death of respondent No. 7, who belonged to the same village in which the appellants reside and was buried in the common graveyard. It is submitted that in the series of applications made during the pendency of the appeal, the information about the death of respondent No. 7 was sufficiently conveyed to the appellants. The plea of the appellants that prolonged litigation between the parties prevented them from getting knowledge about the death of respondent No. 7 is factually incorrect for the reason that the parties reside in the same village and their residential houses are located adjacent to each other. The plea of the appellants that because of Mr. Altaf Haqani, learned counsel for the appellants, remaining out of the country for some time, the application could not be moved in time also cannot be accepted for the reason that Mr. Haqani was all along available in Srinagar till November, 2025 and also that such an application could have been filed by any lawyer in his office.

CM No. 1408/2026

4 This is an application for setting aside the abatement of the appeal on account of the death of respondent No. 7. In this application as well, the appellants claim to have acquired knowledge about the death of the deceased only when they received a copy of CM No. 6593/2025 filed by respondents No. 1 to 6 and 8 to 11. It is also pleaded that, as mandated by Rule 10-A of Order 22 CPC, the information was never given by learned counsel representing the deceased respondent about his death till he filed CM No. 6593/2025. It is submitted that the Civil Second Appeal was listed on a number of occasions, but the appearing respondents maintained calculated silence so as to allow the time to pass for filing an application for substitution of legal heirs. This application is also resisted by the appearing respondents on similar grounds as raised in CM No. 1407/2026.

CM No