MC 759/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr A Maleque, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr SS Sharma, l earned senior counsel for the respondents, except the respondent No.3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the parties that since the legal heirs of respondent No.3, who died during the pendency of the connected re vision petition, are already on record, being respondent Nos.4 to 9, no applicat ion is required to be filed for substitution of their names. Since the legal heirs of the respondent No.3 are already on record, as responden t Nos.4 to 9, no proper application for bringing their names on record is requir ed to be filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the averments m ade in the application, I am of the view that the applicant was prevented by suf ficient cause in not preferring the appeal on time, and hence the delay of nine days occurred in filing the appeal is condoned. The miscellaneous application stands allowed.