RAM NARAYAN BHARTI Vs. SAVVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the defend -ants -appellants -petitioners as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs -respondents -opposite parties no.1(a) to 1(d).

(2.) THIS matter arises out of Partition Suit No. 09 of 1965, which was decreed on 10.3.1973, whereafter Title Appeal No. 104 of 1973 was filed on 19.4.1973 by the petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties vehemently opposed the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that after revival of the said appeal in the year 1997 it was the duty of the appellants to immediately file substitution petition, but without any valid reason such petitions were filed after about four years, although jn the meantime respondents no. 4 and 5 had filed a petition under Order XXII Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the Code for the sake of brevity) on 28.2.2000 informing the court about the death of only respondents no. 1, 2 and 7 and the copy had also been served upon the appellants counsel. Hence, according to the opposite parties there are clear laches on the part of the appellants due to which the abatement cannot be legally set aside.