Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The facts relevant for deciding this application are that plaintiffs Amar Chand and Sagar Mal filed suit for specific performance of agreement dated 19.09.1963 against defendants Gram Panchayat, Sanchore and one Moti and Collector, Jalore. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide Judgment and decree dated 211.1971. Plaintiffs and Gram Panchayat, Sanchore preferred separate regular first appeals which were dismissed by the first appellate Court vide Judgment and decree dated 211.1973. Aggrieved against the Judgment and decree of the two Courts below, plaintiffs preferred S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 153/1974. Said appeal was allowed on 20.02.1986 by this Court. 3. After the decision of second appeal on 20.02.1986, a review petition was submitted by Smt. Naju w/o Moti and another application under Section 151, CPC was submitted by one Mafatlal S/o Moti. Both prayed that Moti died on 112.1977 during pendency of second appeal whereas second appeal was allowed by this Court on 20.02.1986. In fact, according to said Smt. Naju, Second Appeal No. 153/1974 already abated before the decision by the High Court on 20.02.1986. 4. It will be relevant to mention here that during pendency of these applications, one of the plaintiffs - Sagarmal died on 13.07.1987 but his legal representatives were not brought on record by the applicants Smt. Naju or Mafatlal. This Court decided the review application as well as application under Section 151, CPC vide order dated 211.1992. This Court allowed the application under Section 151, CPC filed by the defendants and set aside the Judgment and decree of this Court dated 20.02.1986 passed in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 153/1974 on the ground that the second appeal abated before the decision dated 20.02.1986. The present Application No. 39/1993 has been filed by one of plaintiff Amar Chand purported to be under Order 22 Rules 9 and 11, CPC read with Section 151 CPC. In this application, plaintiff Amar Chand impleaded Mafatlal also as party who already died on 09.06.1992 before filing of this Application No. 39/1993 on 05.03.1993. 5. Notices were issued and on the summon of Mafatlal, report received that he has died. In this application, plaintiff Amar Chand impleaded Mafatlal also as party who already died on 09.06.1992 before filing of this Application No. 39/1993 on 05.03.1993. 5. Notices were issued and on the summon of Mafatlal, report received that he has died. On the basis of the said report, applicant submitted an application stating therein that the applicant came to know about the death of Mafatlal from the report but he died issueless and there is no other legal representatives of Mafatlal, therefore, the name of Mafatlal be deleted from the array of parties. It was also stated that he was unmarried. 6. The contesting respondents raised serious objection on this application and submitted that Mafatlal was married and had six issues and wife. It is submitted that both the parties are residents of a small village. The applicant was knowing it fully well that Mafatlal died in the year 1992 and he was married and had six children. Despite this fact, the applicant deliberately to mislead this Court, submitted application to state that Mafatlal died issueless. 7. In such situation, the applicant submitted another application under Order 22 Rules 4 and 9, CPC for setting aside the abatement of the application and taking on record the legal representatives of Mafatlal which is also being opposed by the contesting respondents. 8. During the pendency of this application under Order 22 Rules 4, 9 and 11, CPC for setting aside the abatement of S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 153 of 1974 decided on 20.02.1986, one of the respondent Keshi w/o Sagarmal died and Gram Panchayat, Sanchore stand converted into Municipal Board, Sanchore. The applicant submitted application stating therein that since Keshi died and her legal representatives are already on record, therefore, the name of Keshi may be deleted and in place of Gram Panchayat, Sanchore, Municipal Board, Sanchore may be impleaded as party. 9. In the Application No. 39/1993, present one, the applicant prayed that the abatement of second appeal may be set aside and it may be declared that application under Section 151, CPC bearing No. 204/1987 decided by this Court vide order dated 211.1992 may be declared nullity in view of the fact that the application itself abated due to death of Sagarmal before said application under Section 151 CPC was decided. 10. 10. It appears from the facts mentioned above itself that one of the defendants Moti died during pendency of appeal on 112.1977. Principally, the relief was against said Moti. A petition was submitted by legal representatives of Moti in the year 1987 stating therein that the second appeal has abated on the date of death of Moti on 112.1977. This application was contested by the applicant and thereafter, after about 16 years from the date of death of contesting defendant Moti and after more than six years from the time when the objection about death of Moti was taken by the legal representatives of Moti, the applicant submitted the present Application No. 39/1993 under Order 22 Rules 4, 9 and 11, CPC on 05.03.1993. The facts which come out from the record of the High Court itself are sufficient to dismiss the application filed by the applicant under Order 22 Rules 4, 9 and 11, CPC. 11. It is strange that the respondent, who died during the pendency of second appeal and Judgment was passed in favour of the applicant/plaintiff by this Court without noticing the death of contesting defendant and objection raised by legal representatives of defendant before this Court in the year 1987, one of the plaintiff mustered courage to submit application under Order 22 Rules 4, 9 and 11, CPC after six years and that too when that objection continued till 1992 when this Court set aside the Judgment and decree passed by this Court in second Appeal No. 153/1974. It is strange that during entire this period from 1987 to 1992, no application was submitted by the applicant for setting aside abatement of Appeal No. 153/1974. Apart from above, the application contains absolutely false facts. The legal representatives of Mafatlal were already taken on record in review Petition No. 204/1987, still that dead person was impleaded in Application No. 39/1993. When the report of process server received on the summon of deceased Mafatlal that he has died, a false application has been submitted before this Court stating therein that Mafatlal did not marry and, therefore, had no issue and that he had no other legal representative, therefore, his name may be deleted. It is not in dispute that both the parties are residents of a very small village. It is not in dispute that both the parties are residents of a very small village. There is allegation that the plaintiff/applicant had full knowledge of death of Mafatlal from 1992, therefore, the application has been filed deliberately against a dead person. 12. Consequently, the application itself being filed against the dead person is incompetent and otherwise also, there is no merit in the application because of the reason that no ground is made out for setting aside of abatement of Second Appeal No. 153/1974 when the application has been filed after a delay of more than 17 years from the date of death of respondent Moti and because of inordinate delay in moving application when the fact of death of Moti was specifically brought to the notice of the applicant by legal representatives of deceased Moti by moving application before this Court. 13. In view of the above, this application is dismissed. 14. In the facts mentioned above, this Court is not inclined to issue notice to the legal representatives of Mafatlal because no purpose can be served in a matter like this by issuing notice and there is no ground made out for condonation of delay for bringing on record the legal representatives of Mafatlal. 15. Learned Counsel for the respondent has not pressed the application under Section 340 CrPC, hence, the same is hereby dismissed.