ORDER : The appeal in A.S.No.34 of 2007 has come to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Very belatedly steps taken to restore the appeal dismissed for default. Accordingly, it is found that an application in I.A.No.12 of 2014 has been preferred to condone the delay of 653 days in preferring the restoration application. 2. It is found that thereafter, the above said application in I.A.No.12 of 2014 has been taken up for enquiry and after adduction of evidence by the respective parties and when the matter stands adjourned for argument, it is found that the civil revision petitioners, who are the appellants, take out three applications, namely, I.A.No.124 of 2016 to re-open I.A.No.12 of 2014, another I.A.No.125 of 2016 for striking the party already impleaded and another I.A.No.83 of 2016 for impleading certain parties and consequently, to carry out the amendment. The said applications have been laid by the civil revision petitioners on the footing that their predecessor-in-title i.e., their father had not prosecuted the lis properly and they being ladies not aware of the situation are unable to take out necessary applications in due course of time and hence, their applications should be entertained. The said applications preferred by the revision petitioners have been strongly resisted by the respondents. The Lower Court, on a consideration of the rival contentions putforth by the respective parties, dismissed all the applications. Challenging the same, the civil revision petitions have been preferred. 3. As rightly found the Lower Court, when the reasons given by the revision petitioners for sustaining the above said applications are found to be unacceptable and further, the Lower Court has also found that the revision petitioners have not been prosecuting the appeal diligently by filing suitable applications and only to delay the proceedings endlessly and cause undue hardship to the respondents, they have been taking applications after applications and therefore, the Lower Court has held that the applications deserve no acceptance and accordingly, rejected all the applications. 4. The reasons given by the Lower Court for dismissing the applications are found to be acceptable and not to be interfered with. 5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners has placed reliance upon the following decisions: i. 2002 (4) CTC 189 [Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and Another]; ii. 2009 (3) CTC 522 [UCO Bank, Chetpet Bank vs. Nest Tours & Travels P. Ltd., and others]; iii. 5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners has placed reliance upon the following decisions: i. 2002 (4) CTC 189 [Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and Another]; ii. 2009 (3) CTC 522 [UCO Bank, Chetpet Bank vs. Nest Tours & Travels P. Ltd., and others]; iii. 2011-5-L.W.597 [State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Union of India and another]; iv. (2013) 2 MLJ 328 [M. Thamaraiselvi vs. Latha and another]; v. 2015-5-L.W.761 [Kaleeswaran vs. Uma]; vi. (2015) 4 SCC 182 [Mount Mary Enterprises vs. Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt., Ltd.]; and vii. ILR 2004 KAR 2571 [H. Aziz Khan and others v. Smt. Muniyamma and others] 6. The principles of law enunciated in the above said decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, I find that the Lower Court has properly appreciated the merits of the case in the right perspective both factually as well as legally and held that the applications have been preferred by the revision petitioners only to drag on the proceedings endlessly and consequently the same having exposed the improper conduct of the appeal proceedings by the revision petitioners, has rightly dismissed the applications. The order of the Lower Court is found to be correct and accordingly the civil revision petitions are dismissed. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.