1 S.B.CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.273/2001. Ram Ji Lal & Anr. VS Natholi & Ors. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.273/2001. Ram Ji Lal and Another. VERSUS Natholi and Others. 29.03.2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.R.P.Garg, for the appellants. Mr.Amit Gupta, for the respondents. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The matter comes up on the application No.4191 submitted by the appellants by the appellant under Order 22 Rule 2 and 9 C.P.C. for substitution of the legal representatives of the respondent No.2 and 6 as well as for setting aside the abatement. During the course of hearing on 5th of February, 2008, it was stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent No.2 Khilari and the respondent No.6 Aatbal Singh have expired during the pendency of the appeal. On being so informed, learned counsel for the appellant sought time to take necessary steps for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondents No.2 and 6 on record. The present application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the respondents No.2 and 6 has been filed before this court on 10.02.2010 i.e. after 2 S.B.CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.273/2001. Ram Ji Lal & Anr. VS Natholi & Ors. two years of the aforesaid information being furnished by the learned counsel for the respondent. The only explanation for the delay which has been given in the application is that the appellant did not know that the legal representatives are to be taken on record and after that talks for compromise were going on and, therefore, he could not contact his counsel. The aforesaid explanation in the light of the facts which have come on record does not appear to be justified as once it was disclosed before the court on 5th of February, 2008, it can safely be presumed that the counsel for the appellant has informed the appellant that steps are required to be taken for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent Nos.2 and 6. In that view of the matter, there being no explanation worth the name showing any sufficient cause for condoning the delay for a period of two years and setting aside the abatement which having taken place by operation of law on account of the death of the respondent No.6 on 09.11.2004 and the respondent No.2 on 19.07.2006 itself as in the absence of the legal representatives the decree of the court below cannot be set aside and would result in conflicting decrees if the appeal is allowed, the appeal in the facts and circumstances of the case stands dismissed as having abated. In the application No.4191 dated 10.02.2010 it has also been stated that the appellant No.1 has also 3 S.B.CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.273/2001. Ram Ji Lal & Anr. VS Natholi & Ors. died during the pendency of the appeal, though no date of death of the appellant No.1 has been given in the application. However, during the course of hearing, it was submitted that the appellant No.1 died on 31.10.2008. In that view of the matter even on account of the death of the appellant No.1, the appeal stood abated. In the facts and circumstances, the application Nos.4191 dated 10.02.2010 and 4192 dated 10.02.2010 stand dismissed. The appeal also stands dismissed as having abated. The application No.33463 dated 20.12.2007 for dispensing with the preparation of paper book also stands dismissed. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.