JUDGMENT :

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2020 in I.A.No.103 of 2020 in I.A.No.161 of 2019 in O.S.No.353 of 2008 on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as plaintiff, defendants and proposed parties as arrayed in the original suit and in I.A.No.161 of 2019.

2. The plaintiff has filed the original suit No.353 of 2008 for specific performance of agreement of sale against defendant Nos.1 and 2. During pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died and as per the orders in I.A.No.141 of 2015, dated 26.10.2017, defendant No.2 i.e. the wife of defendant No.1 was brought on record as his legal representative. Defendant No.1 himself has filed the written statement in the original suit on 04.09.2008, issues were settled and the trial was in progress. At this stage, as the defendant No.1 died, his wife was brought on record as defendant No.2 as per the orders in I.A.No.141 of 2015, dated 26.10.2017. Thereafter, I.A.No.161 of 2019 was filed by the proposed parties under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w. Order 22 Rule 4 CPC to implead them as defendant Nos.3 to 6 in the original suit. That application was dismissed for default on 23.01.2020. Consequently, I.A.No.103 of 2020 is filed under Order 9 Rule 9 r/w. Section 151 CPC to restore I.A.No.161 of 2019 by setting aside the dismissal order dated 23.01.2020 in the interest of justice. This application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was dismissed through the order impugned on 12.03.2020 by the trial Court with an observation that initially, I.A.No.1320 of 2017 was filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w. Order 22 Rule 4 CPC to permit them to come on record being the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.1 and that application was dismissed by the trial Court after due contest, on 17.08.2018 holding that there is a dispute with regard to relationship between the proposed parties and the deceased defendant No.1 and that they cannot be treated as the legal representatives of deceased/defendant No.1 for the purpose of the original suit as the defendant No.2 is added as his legal representative. 3. After dismissal of I.A.No.1320 of 2017, the petitioners have again filed I.A.No.161 of 2019 under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC to permit them to come on record as defendant Nos.3 to 6 being the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.1 and that petition was dismissed for default on 23.01.2020 since the petitioners failed to prosecute the litigation properly and the costs imposed by the Court were also not paid till 3.40 p.m. on that day. The Court below has made an observation that even prior to that date, docket reveals that petitioners were not evincing any interest to prosecute the case. Further, the order dated 17.08.2018 passed in I.A.No.1320 of 2017 has attained finality since there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioners have preferred any revision or appeal before the superior Court challenging the dismissal orders.

4. The above being the factual position, the petitioners, without disclosing the dismissal of I.A.No.1320 of 2017 on 17.08.2018, have again filed I.A.No.161 of 2019 under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC to implead them in the original suit as legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1. At the cost of repetition, it is to mention that after the death of defendant No.1, his wife Smt.T.Vijaya Laxmi was brought on record as defendant No.2 as per the orders in I.A.No.141 of 2015, dated 26.10.2017 and amended plaint was also filed. The orders in I.A.No.1320 of 2017, dated 17.08.2018 are available in the material papers filed by the revision petitioners/proposed parties, which show that the petitioners approached the Court with a request to implead them as legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1 after the defendant No.2 was brought on record as legal representative of defendant No.1, but they failed to file