ORDER : 1. By medium of this appeal order dated 28.01.2014, passed by the Court of ld. Additional District Judge, Anantnag, is assailed. By virtue of order impugned, application filed by the appellant for bringing on record legal representatives of the deceased Mst. Raja has been dismissed. 2. For effectual adjudication of the lis and to appreciate the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it shall be advantageous to, precisely, notice the factual matrix which has entangled the close relatives into an endless litigation: (a) Basically suit was filed by one Mst. Raja (now deceased) against her sister, Mst. Zaina, before the Court of Sub Judge, Bijbehara, on 20th April, 1999. The suit has been decreed on the basis of compromise vide judgment dated 11.05.1999, in terms whereof, plaintiff therein, Mst. Raja, has been declared to be owner in possession of land measuring 2 kanals 12 marlas covered by survey No. 65 and 2 kanals 13 marlas covered by survey No. 137-min situated at village Gundi Nowroz Tehsil Bijbehara; (b) Record reveals that Mst. Zaina has filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 11.05.1999 before the Court of District Judge, Anantnag, which has been assigned to the Court of Additional District Judge, Anantnag, on 27.12.2011, i.e. after a gap of nearly 12 years. Alongside appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed. (c) During pendency of the appeal, admittedly, respondent therein, Mst. Raja (decree holder) died on 11.04.2012. Application for bringing on record legal representatives in terms of order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed on 1st December, 2012. Said application has been resisted by the respondents. (d) The application having been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, therefore, appellant was required to file an application for condonation of the intervening period, which has not been done. (e) Learned Additional District Judge, Anantnag, while noticing various sub-rules of Order XXII CPC, has concluded that appellant has not filed application for setting aside abatement, which was required to be done after a period of two months because abatement after two months was automatic. 3. (e) Learned Additional District Judge, Anantnag, while noticing various sub-rules of Order XXII CPC, has concluded that appellant has not filed application for setting aside abatement, which was required to be done after a period of two months because abatement after two months was automatic. 3. The main plank of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, in fact, appellant had informed her counsel well in time, application for bringing on record legal representatives was drafted on 22nd May, 2012 but it is the negligence of the counsel for the appellant who has filed the same on 1st December, 2012, therefore, for the negligence of the counsel appellant cannot be made to suffer. 4. In the first blush argument appeared to be attractive because date of drafting of the application is shown 22nd May, 2012, why application has been filed on 1st December, 2012, at least should have been explained by the appellant before the learned Additional District Judge. Even if it be true that there was negligence on the part of counsel, still requirement was to seek condonation of delay which has not been done. When it is so, how could a time barred application for bringing on record legal representatives be allowed. Needless to mention that the deceased was none else but the sister of the appellant, therefore, appellant cannot have any ground to say that she did not know anything about the death of her sister when in the application it is admitted by the appellant that the deceased died on 11.04.2012. 5. Given the fact situation, position of the decree having been passed in the year 1999, that too on the basis of compromise arrived at in between the two sisters, then the challenge thrown to the said decree after a period of 11 years coupled with the fact of non-filing of application for bringing on record legal representatives well within the time prescribed, suggests only that the appellant is interested in dragging the respondents indefinitely into an endless litigation. 6. The order impugned passed by learned Additional District Judge squarely falls within the scope of Order XXII Rule 4 CPC which is not appealable as is clear from Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. Viewed thus, appeal being not maintainable is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. Trial court record along with copy of the judgment be sent to the court below.