Judgment : .1. Muthusamy. On 27. 1993, the matter was posted for taking steps to bring his legal representatives on record. However, the respondent not having taken steps, the suit was dismissed on that day as being abated. On 4. 1994, the respondent filed an application I.A.No.161 of 1997 to condone the alleged delay of 222 days in seeking to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the said Muthusamy. In the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay, it was stated as follows: .“The said Muthusamy had died on 19. 1989 and the case was posted on 27. 1993 for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased/sole defendant as additional defendants in the case and since no petition to implead the legal representatives of the deceased defendant had been filed on 27. 1993, the suit was dismissed observing that on the death of the defendant Muthusamy, the suit stood abated.” 2. The further case in the affidavit was that the respondent could not collect the necessary details about the legal representatives of the deceased/sole defendant in time, which had also consumed such time. It was stated that the Collector was also confronted with flood relief and other related matters which required undivided attention to the affected families and helpless persons and that the dismissal of the suit would cause hardship and loss to the State and that non-filing of the application in time was neither wilful nor wanton or deliberate, and that was solely beyond the control of the respondent. .3. Theapplication was opposed by the revision petitioners contending inter alia as follows: Suit against a dead man was illegal, invalid and not maintainable under law. The averments in the affidavit were not true. The number of days’ calculated was not correct. There was a delay of four years inasmuch as the deceased a famous businessman in Nagercoil Town owning Muthu Theatre and other institutions and the Collectors Office had given name and licence transfer for all his concerns in the year 1989 itself, the year of his death, and therefore, the State could not placed ignorance of the names of his legal representatives. 4. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Karuppaswamy v. Ramamurthy A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2324 and held that because there was delay in obtaining the details of the heirs, the application could not be filed in time and the delay having been properly explained, the same had to be condoned. It is as against this order of condonation, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 5. Mrs.Ammu Balachandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, who are the heirs of the deceased Muthusamy, vehemently contended that the respondent/State knew about the death of Muthusamy even in the year 1989, that there were other matters in which the details regarding the heirs of the deceased were available with the State and in fact, the State represented by the Collector had acted on these details and granted transfer to the heirs in respect of the theatres and other institutions owned by the deceased Muthusamy. According to the learned counsel, the reliance placed by the respondent/State on the decision of the Supreme Court in Karuppaswamy v. Ramamurthy A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2324 was ill-founded. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that as soon as details were available, the respondent/State took immediate steps to bring the legal representatives on record and some amount of latitude in this case, where the State was involved as a party, was necessary. The learned Government Advocate placed considerable reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court already referred to. 7. In the decision of the Supreme Court, there was material to show that the State, in that case, knew about the death of the other party only from the endorsement made in the summons sent by the court and immediately thereafter, details were gathered and steps were taken to bring the legal representatives on record. I do not think, that the decision of the Supreme Court will apply to the facts of the present case in which there are. Indeed, materials to show that as early as on 111. 1989, the respondent had been notified about the death of the said Muthusamy. There was a reply given by the Collector on 212. 1989 and the suit was filed against a dead person on 17. 1991. This state of affairs continued till the matter was posted on 27. 1993 for taking steps to bring the legal representatives on record and on 27. There was a reply given by the Collector on 212. 1989 and the suit was filed against a dead person on 17. 1991. This state of affairs continued till the matter was posted on 27. 1993 for taking steps to bring the legal representatives on record and on 27. 1993, the suit was dismissed as having abated as no steps, as directed by the court were taken. 8. The respondent/State was, indeed, grossly negligent and rather casual about the proceedings. More than a lakh of rupees was sought to be recovered by filing the suit. It chose to file the suit against a dead person. The reasoning of the lower court in condoning the delay of 222 days cannot be supported. 9. The specific case of the revision petitioners is that the respondent knew about the death of Muthusamy even in the year 1989 and there were transfers effected in respect of the business of the deceased Muthusamy in favour of the petitioners and notwithstanding that the respondent/State chose to file the suit against the dead person. However, to show that the respondent knew about the death of Muthusamy even in the year 1989, no material appeared to have been furnished before the lower court. The lower court has merely relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Karuppaswamy v. Ramamurthy A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2324. As already noticed that was a case in which the State did not knew about the death of the person at the time the suit was filed, but only subsequently, from the endorsement in the summons, it came to know and immediately took steps. The lower court without referring to the facts of the case, decided by the Supreme Court, has merely from the head note, held that the application by the respondent had to be allowed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court. The lower court ought to have seen, whether the ratio of the Supreme Court would apply to the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, the order of the lower court cannot be sustained. However, in the absence of any material produced before the lower court to show that the respondent knew about the death of Muthusamy even in the year 1989, the revision petitioners cannot straight away have relief. 10. In these circumstances, the order of the lower court cannot be sustained. However, in the absence of any material produced before the lower court to show that the respondent knew about the death of Muthusamy even in the year 1989, the revision petitioners cannot straight away have relief. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners also sought to file certain documents before this Court to show that the respondent knew about the death of Muthusamy even in 1989. 11. Having regard to all these things, I feel, the proper thing would be to set aside the order of the lower court and remit the matter for consideration afresh to enable the parties to adduce the evidence as to the exact time of knowledge of the respondent about the death of Muthusamy. The civil revision petition is allowed and the order of the lower court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Subordinate Judge for consideration afresh in the light of what is stated above. The parties are at liberty to let in oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions.