ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THE APPELLANT HEREIN WAS THE SECOND APPELLANT BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THERE WERE TWO RESPONDENTS IN THE APPEAL AND BOTH OF THEM HAD DIED. THE APPELLANT MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADING THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED RESPONDENTS. THE SAME WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE BELATED. 3. WE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AND COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS. 4. THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS ARGUED THAT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENTS COUNSEL POINTED OUT THE DEATH OF THESE RESPONDENTS, THE APPELLANT HEREIN DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION TO IMPLEAD THE LRS. WE SEE THAT THE DEATH OF THE RESPONDENTS WAS REPORTED TO THE COURT ONLY IN APRIL 2002, AND THE APPELLANT MOVED APPLICATION IN JULY 2002, TO IMPLEAD THE RESPONDENTS. WE DO NOT THINK THERE WAS INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT. 5. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HIGH COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION AFTER CONDONING THE DELAY. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT AND DIRECT THAT THE APPEAL BE RESTORED TO FILE AND THE APPELLANT BE ALLOWED TO IMPLEAD LRS OF THE TWO RESPONDENTS. THE HIGH COURT IS REQUESTED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER COMPLETING THE NECESSARY STEPS. 6. THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY.