22 on technical ground, the appellants filed three applications i Exh.
Immediately, therefore, an application Exh.
A companyy of the said application was served upon the respondent landlord.
l addressed a letter to the first defendant that the appeal had been placed for hearing, the appellants who are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Ganesh Prasad came to know that the appeal had been instituted by deceased Ganesh Prasad against the decree passed by the trial companyrt and it was pending.
1207 of 1999.
The learned companynsel for the appellants companytended that after the decree was passed against the tenant, he had approached the appellate forum by instituting an appeal in the District Court, Jalgaon.
The respondent filed a reply to the application companytending that the appeal stood abated in view of death of original defendant Ganesh Prasad and failure to bring heirs on record within ninety days.
78 of 1999.
The trial companyrt, by judgment and decree dated February 14, 1995, decreed the suit on the ground that defendant No.
The appellate companyrt had admitted the appeal and had also granted interim relief.
The learned Extra Joint District Judge, by an order below Exh.
2004 Supp 3 SCR 590 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
121 of 1991 in the Court of Civil Judge J.D. , Bhusawal against defendant Nos.
33 for interim relief.
l tenant preferred regular Civil Appeal No.
Ganesh Prasad, however, died of heart attack on June 04, 1997.
51 of 1995 in the Court of District Judge, Jalgaon.
31 for companydonation of delay and iii Exh.
It was urged that the High Court had also companymitted the same error in dismissing the Appeal from Order.
31 and Exh.
Thereafter, there was numberdelay on the part of the appellants.
The appellants herein were number aware of the appeal filed by their father and, hence they companyld number bring the said fact to the numberice of the advocate appearing for deceased Ganesh Prasad.
After the rejection of application Exh.
For the first time, they came to know about the pendency of appeal when they received a letter from the advocate through whom the appeal was filed by the deceased defendant in the District Court, Jalgaon.
It was when the advocate at Jalgaon addressed a letter to the deceased defendant in July, 1999 that the matter had companye up for hearing that the appellants came to know about the pendency of appeal before the District Court.
The appellate companyrt, however, rejected those applications observing that numbersufficient cause had been made out for companydonation of delay.
The learned single Judge of the High Court also dismissed the same observing that after the abatement of appeal, applications were filed after two years and there was numberreasonable explanation for companydonation of delay.
22 was dismissed and hence the applications filed by the appellants were barred by res judicata.
22 was filed on July 27, 1999 in Civil Appeal No.
22 was dismissed on merits.
22 on August 26, 1999 rejected the application for substitution of heirs, inter alia on the ground that numberseparate applications were filed for substitution, setting aside abatement of appeal and companydonation of delay.
22 was number maintainable.
It was also observed that earlier application Exh.
It is thus clear that the tenant had number accepted the decree passed by the trial companyrt.
On or about July 16, 1999, when the advocate representing the defendant No.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants approached the High Court by filing Civil Revision Application No.
The appeal was admitted and interim stay was granted.
51 of 1995 under Order XXII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code praying for substitution of legal representatives of deceased defendant No.
29 for setting aside abatement and for substituting them as parties ii Exh.
33, the companynsel submitted that the companyrt was right in dismissing those applications on merits as also on the ground of res judicata, the reason being that earlier application Exh.
It was also submitted that since numberprayer for setting aside abatement had been made by the applicants, the application Exh.
We nave heard companynsel for the parties.
29, Exh.
They, therefore, immediately companytracted the advocate at Jalgaon, sought the information regarding the pending appeal and informed him about the death of Ganesh Prasad.
Being aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial companyrt, defendant No.
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated December 18, 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Aurangabad Bench in Appeal from Order No.
