(1.) This appeal and revision arc connected and raise a legal question under Order 72. C.P.C. read with Section 229 Indian CONTRACT ACT, 1872. They arise in the following manner:
(2.) The two appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2/77 on the file of Sub-Court, Narsapur. They filed the suit for declaring the decrees in O.S. Nos. 90/69 and 72/69 on the file of Sub Court, Narsapur as not binding on the plantiffs and for setting aside the same, for the partition and other reliefs. The 1st defendant is their father while the 2nd defendant is their mother. Defendants 3 and 4 are their sisters. During the pendency of the suit, the 6th defendant who is the decree-holder in O.S.No. 90/69 on the file of the same Court died on 4.4.1981. Thereafter I.A.No. 819/81 was filed by the plantiffsappellants for setting aside the abatement and I.A.No. 818/81 was filed either for bringing the legal representatives on record or for condonation of delay and it is not clear from the record as to the actual relief claimed in I.A.No.818/81. Another un-numbered I.A. was filed for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased 6th defendant on record. All these applications were rejected by the lower Court on the ground that the appellants have not shown sufficient cause for not filing the applications in time. Against the orders made in I.A.No.819/81 C.M.A.No.411 '83 has been preferred while against the order in I.A.No.818/81 C.R.P.No. 1560/83 is preferred.
(3.) In this appeal, it is contended by Sri P. V.Seshaiah, the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs that the Court below went wrong in rejecting the applications filed by the appellants for setting aside the abatement and for bringing the legal representatives of the 6th defendant on record. On the other hand, it is contended by Sri C. Subba Rao, learned counsel representing Sri C. Poornaiah, Advocate that there are latches on the part of the appellants and that there is no valid explanation for the delay in filing the said applications.