Devinder Gupta, J.—The order passed on 25th July, 1991 by the Additional District Judge, Nahan, Sirmaur District Camp at Solan, is under challenge in this revision petition at the behest of the plaintiffs, who were respondents in the appeal before the lower appellate court The facts giving rise to the revision petition may be narrated

2. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners in the Court of Sub-Judge, Kandaghat, wherein they claimed a decree for declaration that they, alongwith proforma defendants, are the owners in possession of the suit land, according to the shares, as per Shajra Nasab and the entries in the revenue record as also certain mutations were illegal, against facts and had no effect on their rights and also that they alongwith proforma defendants alone had got a right to get compensation in respect of the part of the suit property, which had been acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh. After a protracted trial, the suit was decreed on 22nd June, 1987. The decree was passed to the following effect; “the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are held to be owners in possession of the suit land and that they are and not Gram Panchayat entitled to receive the compensation for acquisition of a part of it by the State Government.....”

3. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh. On 13th September. 1990, a statement was made by the Counsel for the plaintiffs that one of the plaintiffs, namely, Hans Raj, who was respondent No. 6 in the appeal had died The Additional District Attorney, appearing for the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh, sought adjournment to enable him to take steps for bringing on record the legal representatives. Further adjournment was sought on 13th November, 1990. Steps were not taken, and again adjournment was sought on 13th Decem ber, 1990, 18th January, 1991 and 13th March, 1991. It was on 14th March, 1991 that an application was moved to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Hans Raj. It was stated in the application that Hans Raj had died on 9th July, 1990 and had left behind Smt Saraswati, his widow and two sons Mohan Dutt and Ramesh Dutt. It was further stated in the application that the factum of death came to the knowledge of the appellant on 19th January, 1991 when the information, after verification, was received from Tehsildar, Solan and the application was being made in time. In para 4 of the application, it was stated that even other wise, if the court comes to the conclusion that the application is not within time, the same be condoned in the interests of justice and consequently a prayer was made for bringing on record the legal representatives. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs, who stated that the averments made in the same were patently wrong since the same were contrary to the record. Knowledge of the death was acquired by the appellant on 13th September, 1990, when a statement was made at bar in the presence of Additional District Attorney. Even from the date of acquiring knowledge the application had not been made within a period of 90 days. The appeal had, in fact, abated on the expiry of 90 days from the date of death and since there was no prayer for setting aside abatement, the application was liable to be dismissed and appeal deserved to be dismissed in toto.

4. Through the impugned order, the appellate court found that even as per the averments made in the application of the State that one of the plaintiffs, who was respondent in the appeal, had died on 9th July, 1990, no application was made within the period of 90 days either from the date of death or from the date of acquiring knowledge, namely, 13th September, 1990, when the intimation of death was given by the Counsel in the presence of the Additional District Attorney, the appeal qua the deceased stood abated on the expiry of 90 days from 13th September, 1990. No cogent and sufficient reason had been assigned in the application for condo