Judgment K.C.Gupta, J. 1. This revision petition has been instituted by Smt. Nimmo Devi and Smt. Om Devi daughters of Mota Ram against order dated 28.11.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur whereby their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was dismissed and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Smt. Manni Devi respondent (plaintiff) filed a civil suit for fixation of maintenance at the rate of 1000/- per month and also for creating a charge on the immovable property of her husband Mota Ram i.e. land measuring 212 Kanals 3 Marias fully detailed in the head note of the plaint situate at village Maujgarh, Tehsil Abohar, as per Jamabandi for the year 1987-88 and also claimed the relief of permanent injunction for restraining him form alienating any portion of the above mentioned land. Alongwith the suit, an application was filed under Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C. for permission to sue as an indigent person. The said application was allowed vide order dated 18.11.1986 and it was ordered to be registered as a suit. 3. It was averred that Smt. Manni Devi was legally wedded wife of Mota Ram and out of the said wedlock, one son namely Ramji Lal and one daughter namely Chawli Devi were born and both of them were married and were living separately from Manni Devi. It was also averred that prior to her, Mota Ram had married another woman Smt. Sardara Devi and out of that wedlock, two sons namely Nanak Ram and Munshi Ram and 5 daughters namely Smt. Nimmo Devi, Om Devi petitioners, Sheelo Devi respondent No.2, Smt. Shanti Devi respondent No.5 and Smt. Chander Wati were born. Sardara Devi had died many years ago. Mota Ram also died during pendency of the proceedings. Consequently, his legal representatives were brought on record. 4. Sardara Devi had died many years ago. Mota Ram also died during pendency of the proceedings. Consequently, his legal representatives were brought on record. 4. It was next averred that initially Rawat Ram and Mota Rain who were real brothers were owners of the land measuring 212 Kanals 3 marlas and after the death of Rawat Ram his share was inherited by hrs widow Smt. Sunderan Devi but she also died after some time and upon her death the mutation of inheritance of 1/2 share bearing No.866 was sanctioned in favour of Mota Ram and thus, Mota Ram became owner in possession of whole of the land measuring 212 Kanals 3 Marias. 5. It was further averred that Mota Ram never gave any maintenance to Manni Devi respondent who was living hand to mouth and further she was entitled to create charge under Section 27 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 on the property of Mota Ram. 6. Munshi Ram legal representative of Mota Ram contested the petition while Nanak Ram, Shanti Devi, Sheelo Devi, Nimmo Devi, Om Devi and Chander Wati did not contest the petitioner and they were proceeded against ex parte. 7. Munshi Ram filed written statement. He denied the allegations of Smt. Manni Devi and stated that Manni Devi was never legally married to Mota Ram son of Mam Raj and even if any marriage had been performed, the same was illegal during subsistence of first marriage of Mota Ram with Sardara Devi. He also stated that Manni Devi had more than Rs. two lacs in cash with her and had also 3 acres of land from which she was having sufficient earnings to maintain herself. He further stated that step sons of Manni Devi are not liable to pay the maintenance. 8. With these pleadings, following issues were framed:- "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for fixation of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month and for creating charge on the immovable property of the defendant measuring 212 Kanals 3 Marias land as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the defendants are liable to be restrained from alienating any portion of the property detailed in the head note of the plaint? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff was never legally married with late Sh. Mota Ram? If so, its effect on the merits of the case? OPP 2. Whether the defendants are liable to be restrained from alienating any portion of the property detailed in the head note of the plaint? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff was never legally married with late Sh. Mota Ram? If so, its effect on the merits of the case? OPD 4. Whether that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Relief." 9. The parties adduced their evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, vide judgment dated 1.8.1988 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Abohar, the suit of Manni Devi was decreed and it was held that she was entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month from the defendants i.e. petitioners and some of the respondents. It was also ordered that the petitioners and some of the respondents were not to alienate 1-1/2 acres of land on which charge for the maintenance of Manni Devi was created and the said charge would be valid during the life time of Manni Devi plaintiff. 10. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Munshi Ram who had contested the suit filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Ferozepur, vide his detailed judgment dated 29.7.1999. In the said appeal, daughters of Mota Ram from his first wife Sardara Devi were also parties along with their brother Nanak Ram but during pendency of the appeal, they were given up as unnecessary because no relief was claimed against them. Consequently, their names were struck off from the array of the respondents. 11. After the dismissal of the appeal filed by Munshi Ram by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, vide his judgment dated 29.7.1999. Smt. Nimmo Devi, Om Devi and Sheelo Devi daughters of Mota Ram from his first wife filed an appeal against Manni Devi against judgment and decree dated 1.8.1998 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Abohar. Along with the appeal, they also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay on the ground that they were not properly served during pendency of the suit and they immediately applied for copies of judgment and decree which were prepared on 19.1.2000 and thereafter they filed the appeal within limitation from the date of knowledge. 12. 12. Smt. Manni Devi filed reply and stated that judgment dated 1.8.1998 has merged into the order dated 29.7.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur in the appeal titled Munshi Ram v. Manni Devi and as such, the appeal was not maintainable. She further stated that petitioners, Shanti Devi and Chander Wati were impleaded as respondents in the appeal and they were quite aware about the filing of the appeal by Munshi Ram and did not intentionally appear. She also stated that petitioners along with other legal representatives got the property of Mota Ram and they were not liable personally but only with respect to the property of Mota Ram in their hands. 13. Consequently, the following issues were framed on 15.3.2000:- 1. Whether there is sufficient cause made out for condoning the delay as alleged? OPA 2. Relief. 14. Smt. Nimmo Devi, Om Devi, and Shanti Devi did not appear in the Court in person but examined only their brother Nanak Ram being their attorney and closed the evidence. Manni Devi examined her son Ram Ji Lal as her attorney and closed the evidence. 15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide his order dated 28.11.2000 dismissed the application for condonation of delay as according to him there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. 16. Aggrieved by the said order, Nimmo Devi and Om Devi had filed the present revision petition. 17. I have heard Mr. R.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Anjali Kukkar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and carefully gone through the file. 18. The judgment dated 29.7.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, shows that Munshi Ram real brother of the petitioners had filed appeal bearing No. 292 dated 15.9.1999 against Manni Devi, respondent (plaintiff). In the said appeal petitioners and, their other sisters and brother were also impleaded but they were given up by Munshi Ram as unnecessary as no relief was claimed against them. 19. The main plea of Munshi Ram was that Mota Ram was earlier married with Sardara Devi and during subsistence of the first marriage, Mota Ram was not legally entitled to contract second marriage with Manni Devi. 19. The main plea of Munshi Ram was that Mota Ram was earlier married with Sardara Devi and during subsistence of the first marriage, Mota Ram was not legally entitled to contract second marriage with Manni Devi. If at all, he had contracted the second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, then the same as illegal and void. It is in evidence of Manni Devi that she was aged about 15 years at the time of marriage. Her statement was recorded in the Court on 5.2.1997 and in that statement she told her age to be 75 years. Thus, her marriage with Mota Ram had taken place about 60 years ago i.e. in the year 1937, meaning thereby that the said marriage had taken place before enforcement of the Hindu Marriage Act, in 1955. Prior to the enforcement of Hindu Marriage Act, there was no bar for a male Hindu to contract more than one marriage. Thus, performing of second marriage by Mota Ram with Manni Devi during the subsistence of his first marriage was not illegal or void. 20. It is an admitted fact that Mota Ram had died during the pendency of the suit filed by Manni Devi and his legal representatives i.e. 5 daughters and two sons from his first wife were brought on record. The recovery is not to be effected from personal property of the legal representatives of Mota Ram deceased but it is to be effected from the property of Mota Ram in the hands of his LRs. The marriage of Manni Devi with Mota Ram cannot be denied by any stretch of imagination because Mota Ram during his life time had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife Manni Devi which was disposed of on 7.2.1979 as per compromise. Ex.D4 is the copy of the statement of Mota Ram dated 7.2.1979 made in that case. The copy of the application Ex.D2 show that Manni Devi had filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. against her husband Mota Ram for maintenance but the same was also dismissed as withdrawn on 7.2.1979. Ex.D5 is the copy of the statement of Manni Devi. The copy of the application Ex.D2 show that Manni Devi had filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. against her husband Mota Ram for maintenance but the same was also dismissed as withdrawn on 7.2.1979. Ex.D5 is the copy of the statement of Manni Devi. These facts show that a compromise had taken place in both the petitions i.e. for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband Mota Ram and the petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. filed by Manni Devi against her husband Mota Ram. However, one fact is established that Mota Ram admitted Smt. Manni Devi to be his legally wedded wife. From the evidence on record, it is proved that Ram Ji Lal and Chawli Devi are the offsprings of Manni Devi from the loins of Mota Ram while Munshi Ram, Nanak Ram are the sons and Shanti Devi, Sheelo Devi, Nimmo Devi, Om Devi and Chander Wati are the daughters of Sardara Devi from the loins of her husband Mota Ram. 21. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were not properly served and as such, they had no knowledge about the pendency of the suit filed by Manni Devi. It was also contended that the petitioners were married and were residing at the places of their in-laws and their service through Munadi without first exhausting the other methods i.e. through registered covered was not a valid service. It is true that the petitioners were not personally served but they were served thorough beat of drum. The order dated 27.7.1994 shows that they were not present despite service through Munadi and hence, they were proceeded against ex parte. The petitioners had not produced on file the order vide which the petitioners and other respondents were ordered to be summoned through beat of drum as the Court must have been satisfied that it was not possible to get them served in the ordinary manner. It may be stated here that brother of the petitioners namely Munshi Ram had filed an appeal against judgment and decree dated 1.8.1998 which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide his detailed judgment dated 29.7.1999. It is difficult to believe that petitioners had no knowledge that litigation against them, as well as their brother was pursued by their brother Munshi Ram. It is difficult to believe that petitioners had no knowledge that litigation against them, as well as their brother was pursued by their brother Munshi Ram. Even in the subsequent appeal which was filed by them, they did not appear personally but appeared through their brother Nanak Ram being attorney. This shows that they are fighting a proxy war. It appears that the petitioners had tried to cook up a story with the help of their brother who had already lost the battle in the first appeal. The petitioners did not avail the remedy of filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting said the ex parte judgment and decree on the ground that they are not properly served but preferred to file an appeal after their brother Munshi Ram lost the battle. This shows that the petitioners had not come to the Court with clean hands but have filed the appeal mala fide in order to delay the payment of maintenance to Smt. Manni Devi who is aged about more than 75 years and is living hand to mouth. Admittedly, not a single penny had been paid to her in such circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.