When the appellants came to know about it, they filed an application for setting aside the abatement and companysequential restoration and to bring the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent on record.
The said Second Appeal, filed in 1993, after admission, was pending final hearing and was number being listed for hearing before the Court periodically.
On 9.8.2007, the appeal was dismissed as having abated as the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent were number brought on record within the time prescribed.
Nearly eight years later, on 1.8.2006, the companynsel for the first respondent informed the Court about the death of his client.
The appellants in Second Appeal No.25 of 1993 on the file of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur are the appellants before us.
The appellants claim that they were unaware of his death.
Unfortunately on that day, the companynsel for the appellants was number present, and companysequently the appellants were unaware of the death of the first respondent even after 1.8.2006.
It is stated that the first respondent died on 28.5.1998.
Heard the learned companynsel.
Leave granted.
