(1.) It appears that the sole respondent in the appeal died on 24 -4 -1976, leaving behind 5 sons and 3 daughters besides his widow. The information about the death of the respondent was not available with the appellant, as the respondent is reported to have died at Raipur. Admittedly, the appellants do not have any office, establishment or representative at Raipur and hence they were not expected to know day to day events in respondent's family. It appears that even the learned counsel for the respondent did not know about his death and continued representing him in this Court. The final arguments in this appeal were heard on 19 -9 -1979 and the judgment was reserved. It further appears that the judgment was posted for delivery on 24 -9 -1979. On which date Shri N. S. Kale, learned counsel for the respondent informed the Court that the sole respondent was dead. When the counsel for the respondent who is supposed to be in direct touch with the respondent did not have information about the respondent's death, it will be little too much to expect the appellants to know about the same and file these applications in time.
(2.) . The explanation, therefore, appears to be just and reasonable. It consequently affords sufficient cause for setting aside abatement and also for condoning the delay in filing the application for bringing the L. Rs. of the deceased respondent on record. The applications are, therefore, allowed. The abatement of the appeal is set aside. The delay in filing the application for bringing the legal representatives of deceased respondent on record is condoned and the appellants are permitted to substitute the legal representatives by effecting necessary amendment in the record of this Court within 3 days. List the appeal thereafter. Applications allowed.