1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2002 Sumitrabai Baburao Deshkari Vs. Narayan Champatrao Naikwade Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 20 th JULY, 2009. Heard counsel for the applicants and the non applicants. Applicants have filed this application for substitution of their names as legal representatives of the sole appellant. There is a delay in preferring the application under Order 22 Rule 3, hence an application for condonation of delay has been filed. The deceased-appellant died on 16.01.03. Application for substitution of the legal representatives has been filed on 25.03.08. Only contention that is raised in the application is that the applicant No.2 who is a handicapped person could not look after the appeal 2 and he could not file appeal within time. It appears from the contents of the application that the applicant No.2 was knowing that the proceedings have been filed in the High Court when an intimation was sent to the applicant No.2 with regard to this appeal prior to 16.09.05. This matter was listed before the Court on 16.09.2005 when the counsel for the appellant made a statement before the Court that appellant had died on 16.01.03. Obviously it could be said that all the applicants knew about the appeal having been filed in this Court and the same having come up before the Court on 16.09.05. Inspite of such knowledge, it appears that none of the applicants had cared to approach the lawyer and file application in time even from 16.09.05. Decree is for specific performance of contract and it is difficult to assume that applicants 1 and 2 could not know about the decree having been passed and appeal having been preferred before the High Court. There is no explanation of delay. In the circumstances the application stands rejected. Appeal abates. JUDGE svk 3 4 5 6