JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on hand is directed against the Judgment of learned First Appellate Court (Principal District Judge, Anantnag) dated 24th June 2013, whereby Civil First Appeal against the trial court Judgment has been allowed and the suit remanded to the trial court for its fresh disposal under law. The appeal arises in the background detailed in the next following para. The Appellant on 14th February 2002, filed a suit against one Khazir Bhat S/o Moma Bhat R/o Chirhama, Tehsil Kulgam. The suit was registered and the summons issued to the defendants. It was directed to be listed on 5th March 2002. The defendant on 18th February 2002, filed an application before the trial court (Sub Judge, Kulgam) praying therein that as the parties proposed to enter into a compromise, the suit may be listed enabling parties to settle the matter. Learned trial Judge, directed the office to put up the case file on 18th February 2002 itself. 2. The case file was listed before the court on 18th February 2002. The parties submitted the written comprise whereby the controversy was proposed to be settled. The trial court recorded the statements of the parties and the witnesses identifying the parties. The parties accepted the contents of the compromise and confirmed that the compromise was scribed at their instance, with their consent and was true and correct. The statements of counsel for the plaintiff (present Appellant) namely Praveez Ahmad Jan, Advocate and defendant, were recorded in support of the compromise and so was the statement of Muzaffar Ahmad Tak Advocate, identifying witness. The trial court in its order dated 18th February 2002, recorded that the parties presented (compromise) in open court, the contents of the compromise were read over and explained to the parties, accepted by them as true and correct and that their statements as also the statement of the identifying witness were recorded in the open court. Learned trial Judge adjourned the suit to 5th March 2002, for orders. 3. The defendant as ill luck would have it breathed his last on 28th February 2002. The matter came before the trial court on 5th March 2002 for orders and suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise and decree prepared accordingly. 4. One Sarveed Ahmad Bhat-nephew of deceased Khazir Mohammad Bhat, on 9th March 2002, files civil suit against the Appellant. The matter came before the trial court on 5th March 2002 for orders and suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise and decree prepared accordingly. 4. One Sarveed Ahmad Bhat-nephew of deceased Khazir Mohammad Bhat, on 9th March 2002, files civil suit against the Appellant. He sought declaratory decree declaring him adopted son of Late Khazir Ahmad Bhat and the decree dated 5th March 2002, in civil suit titled Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat v. Khazir Ahmad Mohammad Bhat to be in operative against him and as against rights of proforma defendant Ghulam Hassan Bhat. He further sought a decree declaring the decree dated 5th March 2002, in Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat v. Khazir Mohammad Bhat to be invalid, inconsequential and liable to be cancelled and a permanent injunction decree restraining the contesting defendant (present Appellant) from interfering with his possession over the property left by the deceased Khazir Mohammad Bhat, Shri Sarveed Ahmad Bhat after prosecuting the suit for eight long years got it dismissed as withdrawn on 8th March 2010. 5. Mohammad Yousuf Beg and Gulshana Akhter son and daughter of Mst. Shammali both residents of Chirhama, Kulgam on 15th September 2009 i.e. during pendency of the civil suit filed by Sarveeda Ahmad Bhat, filed an appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 5th March 2002, in the civil suit titled Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat v. Khazir Mohammad. The Appellants claimed to be son and daughter of Mst. Shammali sister of deceased Khazir Mohammad Bhat. They questioned the Judgment and decree dated 5th March 2002, on the grounds urged in the appeal. They claimed to have gained knowledge about the impugned judgment and decree on 24th March 2009. Shri Sarveed Ahmad Bhat S/o Khazir Mohammad Bhat plaintiff in civil suit tilted Sarveed Ahmad Bhat v. Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat and another dismissed as withdrawn on 8th March 2010, was impleaded as respondent in the appeal and so were brothers of deceased Khazir Mohammad Bhat and descendants of his sisters Mst. Zooni, Mst. Raja and Mst. Shammali. 6. The Appellate Court on 24th June 2013, allowed Civil First Appeal, set aside judgment and decree dated 5th March 2002 of learned Sub Judge Anantnag and remanded the matter for fresh disposal under law, having due regard to Order XXII Rule 1 to 12 CPC. Zooni, Mst. Raja and Mst. Shammali. 6. The Appellate Court on 24th June 2013, allowed Civil First Appeal, set aside judgment and decree dated 5th March 2002 of learned Sub Judge Anantnag and remanded the matter for fresh disposal under law, having due regard to Order XXII Rule 1 to 12 CPC. The First Appellate Court took the view that the trial court ought to have followed procedure prescribed under order XXII Civil Procedure Code and brought on record the legal representative of the deceased and thereafter disposed of the suit in accordance with law. It held that as the trial court without bringing on record Legal Representatives of the deceased defendant had finally disposed of the suit, the judgment and decree passed were liable to be set aside. 7. The appellate court judgment dated 24th June 2013, is questioned in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on hand. The appellant's case is that learned Appellate Court ought not have entertained appeal more than seven years after the judgment and decree impugned therein, were passed. It is pointed out that mere averments in the memo of appeal that appellant gained knowledge about the judgment and decree on 24th March 2009, was not to persuade the appellate court to entertain the appeal, moreso when appellant's close relations prosecuted the suit for seven long years and proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were also initiated at the instance of one of their relations and concluded by Additional District Magistrate, Anantnag on 11th May 2002. It is next pleaded that the judgment and decree impugned in the appeal were rendered in strict accordance with law and did not call for any interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 8. Heard and considered. 9. The appeal, as noticed by the appellate court was filed after huge delay of more than seven years. The appellant admittedly is a close relative of deceased Khazir Mohammad Bhat. Once judgment and decree impugned in the appeal were rendered, the relations of deceased Khazir Mohammad Bhat, immediately got knowledge about the decree. They did not allow the matter to go uncontested. The matter landed in the court of Executive Magistrate. Shri Sarveed Ahmad-plaintiff in the Civil suit titled Sarveed Ahmad Bhat v. Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat & another laid an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate concerned. They did not allow the matter to go uncontested. The matter landed in the court of Executive Magistrate. Shri Sarveed Ahmad-plaintiff in the Civil suit titled Sarveed Ahmad Bhat v. Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat & another laid an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate concerned. The property left by late Khazir Mohammad Bhat and in possession of the Appellant in terms of Judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit titled Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat v. Khazir Mohammad, was attached under Section 145(4) Cr.P.C. The proceedings under Section 145 Cr. PC were closed by Additional District Magistrate on 18-05-2002 and possession of the land returned to the person in possession on the date of attachment i.e. Appellant. Fresh proceedings under Section 145 Cr. PC were initiated on 31 March 2002, the property in question was again attached. Proceedings were again closed on 15th September 2007 and position as regards possession on the date of application under Section 145 Cr. PC, was restored. Shri Sarveed Ahmad Bhat thereafter prosecuted the suit till it was withdrawn on 18th March 2002. 10. The case set up by the respondents before the Appellate court to justify condonation of delay in the circumstances was not to inspire any confidence. The First Appellate court did not at all consider the above aspect of the case. In view of hot contest between the parties over the property left by Khazir Mohammad Bhat, it would not appeal to reason that the respondents/appellants 1&2 were not aware of the judgment and decree and therefore delay of over 7 years in throwing challenge to the judgment and decree dated 5th March 2002, deserved to be condoned. 11. The court below as the record would reveal did not give adequate and reasonable opportunity to the Appellant to oppose the application for condonation of delay. The Appellant was not before the First Appellate court on 17th August 2011, when the application for condonation of delay was allowed. Respondent No. 2-father of Respondent No. 3, whom the respondents/appellants identified as adopted son of deceased Khazir Mohammad Bhat and therefore supported his claim, was the only respondent present with his counsel before the court. The Appellant was not before the First Appellate court on 17th August 2011, when the application for condonation of delay was allowed. Respondent No. 2-father of Respondent No. 3, whom the respondents/appellants identified as adopted son of deceased Khazir Mohammad Bhat and therefore supported his claim, was the only respondent present with his counsel before the court. The First Appellate Court nonetheless recorded in the order dated 17th August 2011, that the counsel for respondents had no objection to condonation of more than seven years delay in filing the Civil First Appeal on 16th May 2009, against the judgment and decree passed on 5th March 2002. The First Appellate court's order dated 17th August 2011, is not only cryptic but depicts non application of mind. Respondents 1 and 2 failed to explain justify delay in filing the appeal. Had the First Appellate Court looked into all important aspects of the matter and provided Appellant reasonable opportunity to oppose the application, it undoubtedly would have arrived at the conclusion that the delay was not sufficiently explained and application for condonation of delay as well as Civil First appeal liable to be dismissed. 12. Order XXII Rule 6 CPC provides that a civil suit is not to abate where either party to the suit dies between conclusion of the hearing and pronouncement of the judgment. The judgment in such a case is to be -pronounced notwithstanding the death and is to have same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death of such party. The Rule reads as under; No abatement by reason of death after hearing: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing rules, whether the cause of action survives or not, there shall be no abatement by reason of the death of either party between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncing the judgment, but judgment may in such case be pronounced notwithstanding the death and shall the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death took place." 13. In the present case, the hearing in the civil suit was preponed and suit directed to be listed on 18th February 2002. It is important to note that the hearing of the suit was preponed at the instance of the defendant-Khazir Mohammad Bhat. In the present case, the hearing in the civil suit was preponed and suit directed to be listed on 18th February 2002. It is important to note that the hearing of the suit was preponed at the instance of the defendant-Khazir Mohammad Bhat. The First Appellate Court has wrongly observed while deciding Civil First Appeal, that the defendant-late Khazir Mohammad Bhat was not a party to preponing hearing in the suit. The trial court at the written request of the defendant directed the civil suit to come up on 8th February 2002. The defendant in the application, pleaded that the parties had entertained into a compromise and therefore wanted the civil suit to be taken up at an earlier date. When the civil suit was taken up, the parties presented a compromise. The trial court entertained the compromise, recorded the statements of the parties in support of the compromise, as also statements of their advocates and identifying witness. It is only after the trial court was satisfied that the suit stood adjusted by lawful compromise in writing and signed by the parties, that the trial court ordered the compromise to be recorded. 14. The hearing in the matter was therefore concluded on 18th February 2002. The trial court adjourned the matter for pronouncement of Judgement to 5th March 2002. The trial court on 5th March 2002, pronounced the judgment and passed decree in terms of compromise. Against the above backdrop, the hearing was concluded on 18th February 2002, nothing remained before the trial court and no proceedings were to take place after 18th February 2002. The trial court had to only pronounce the judgment on adjourned date. 15. The case squarely fell within four corners of Order XXII Rule 6 CPC. The law visualizes "conclusion of hearing" and "pronouncement of judgment" as two different stages proceeding in a civil suit, with an intervening time gap. In other words, judgment may be pronounced sometime after the conclusion of hearing. In case, in the intervening period either of the parties dies, suit does not abate and those representing his estate need not be brought on record. The Judgment and decree through in the name of the deceased shall operate against or in favour of those representing his/her estate, who would have been otherwise brought on record had taken place before the conclusion of the hearing. The Judgment and decree through in the name of the deceased shall operate against or in favour of those representing his/her estate, who would have been otherwise brought on record had taken place before the conclusion of the hearing. To sum up, the First Appellate Court was wrong in opining that the appellant was to lay a motion under Order XXII CPC for bringing on record legal representative of deceased Khazir Mohammad Bhat and the trial court Judgment and decree, therefore, were liable to be set aside. There was no reason for the First Appellate court to overset the judgment and decree and remand the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal. The First Appellate Court's Judgment dated 24 June 2013, allowing the Civil First Appeal, that was otherwise badly time barred, setting aside the trial court Judgment and remanding the matter to the trial court, for the reasons discussed is liable to be aside. The appeal on hand is accordingly allowed and judgment passed by First Appellate court dated 24-06-2013, is set aside. The trial court judgment dated 5th March 2002, is therefore to hold the field.