JUDGMENT 1. - The notice of respondent No. 8 came with a report dated 2nd September, 1993 that respondent No. 8 Kamruddin expired and office report was also in file dated 17 September, 1994 with respect to the fact of death of respondent No. 8 Kamruddin. Thereafter, an application under order 22 rule 4 CPC has been filed by the appellant on 10th September, 97 alongwith affidavit of Sh. M.L. Mangala, Divisional Manager, National Insurance company Ltd. Respondent No. 1 filed the reply to the application. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 1, 9 and 10. It appears from the application under order 22 rule 4 CPC that appellant was fully aware of the fact that after issuance of 10 the notice, there is a report on the notice of respondent No. 8 Kamruddin with respect to death of respondent No. 8. In the application it is mentioned :hat a letter was written by the learned counsel for the appellant to the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. but no date has been given when this letter was received by the Divisional Manager of the appellant company. 3. It is also mentioned in the application filed on 10th September, 1997 that the Manager of the appellant company vide his letter dated 29.8.97 informed that he is investigating the fact of the death of respondent No. 8 Kamruddin from his Divisional Office, Udaipur. There is nc explanation what happened since 1993 to 1997 and what efforts were made by the appellant for filing application for bringing legal representatives. 4. It is further relevant to mention here, that when and how the appellant came to know about the legal representatives of respondent No. 3. In fact there is no explanation for delay in filing the application under order 22 rule 4 CPC and appellant has not even filed the application under order 22 rule 9 CPC for setting aside the abatement. No application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant. Even the reason given in the application nowhere discloses any cause for condonation of delay. In act a bare perusal of the facts stated in the application clearly show that no efforts were made for bringing legal representatives on record for long 7 years. 5. No application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant. Even the reason given in the application nowhere discloses any cause for condonation of delay. In act a bare perusal of the facts stated in the application clearly show that no efforts were made for bringing legal representatives on record for long 7 years. 5. Therefore, I do not see any reason for condonation of delay, which -request was orally made by the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the facts that no application for setting aside the abatement has been filed even after moving application under order 22 rule 4 CPC on 8th September, 97 and more than three years have already been passed there is no reason for granting further time to the appellants. The application under order 22 rule CPC was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent by filing reply as back as on 23rd September, 1999 even then no steps were taken by the appellant. 6. Therefore, appeal against the respondent No. 8 Kamruddin stands abated. Since the respondent No. 8 was one of the claimants and in favour of whom the award under challenge became final and, therefore, the appeal abates as a whole. Therefore, appeal is dismissed as abated.Appeal dismissed as abated. *******