ORDER : The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 12.11.2009, passed in I.A.No.63 of 2006 in A.S.No.36 of 1997, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Uthamapalayam. 2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 8, 2 to 5 in the suit in O.S.No.66 of 1992, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam and as against the Judgment and Decree passed in the abovesaid suit, the revision petitioners have preferred the first appeal. Now according to the revision petitioners, during the pendency of the first appeal, the appellants 5, 7 and 8 had died and for impleading their legal representatives, they had been collecting the particulars and while so, the Court below had dismissed their appeal for not impleading the legal representatives of the deceased appellants on 17.07.2002 and furthermore, as the first revision petitioner had been to his native place and there he suffered jaundice and took treatment and came to know about the dismissal of the appeal only when the Court Ameen came to the suit property for handing over the possession and thereafter, on enquiry knowing that the appeal had come to be dismissed on 17.07.2002, accordingly, putforth the case that they had preferred the application to restore the same and inasmuch as there occurred a delay of 1280 days in preferring the said application, seeking to condone the said delay, the abovesaid application had been preferred by the revision petitioners. 3. The respondents had resisted the abovesaid application of the revision petitioners contending that even during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent/plaintiff had died and the sixth petitioner – Venkatkumar had also died and without impleading their legal representatives, the present application laid by the revision petitioners is not maintainable and the respondents had moved the Executing Court for obtaining the possession in E.P.No.35 of 2005 and the revision petitioners had entered appearance in the abovesaid matter through their Advocate and therefore, they are well aware of the dismissal of their appeal and the case of the first revision petitioner that he had been affected by jaundice and taking treatment at Kerala and thereby, unable to know the dismissal of the appeal is false and no proper reason has been given for the condonation of the delay and hence, the application is liable to be dismissed. 4. 4. The abovesaid application of the revision petitioners had been dismissed by the Court below. Impungining the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid. 5. Impugning the Judgment and Decree passed in the suit, the revision petitioners have preferred the first appeal. It is found that inasmuch as the revision petitioners have not taken appropriate steps for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased appellants, the appeal had come to be dismissed on 17.07.2002 and to restore the same, the revision petitioners have come forward with an application and as the delay of 1280 days had occurred in preferring the same, the present application had been preferred to condone the delay. With reference to the same, according to the revision petitioners, as the first revision petitioner had been to Kerala and affected by jaundice, he was unable to contact the Advocate to know the stage of the appeal and only after the Court Ameen had visited the suit property for handing over the possession, he came to know about the dismissal of the first appeal and therefore, the delay had occurred. 6. The abovesaid case of the revision petitioners had been resisted by the respondents contending that the revision petitioners have not taken appropriate steps to implead the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and furthermore, even according to the respondents, the sixth petitioner had died and despite the same, the revision petitioners have not impleaded their legal representatives as per law and disputed the reason of illness of the first respondent and contended that the revision petitioners are fully aware of the execution proceedings levied by the respondents and falsely come forward with the application and hence, the application is liable to be dismissed. 7. As rightly determined by the Court below, it is found that the revision petitioners are well aware of the execution proceedings initiated by the respondents as regards the suit property and admitted that they have engaged an Advocate in the execution proceedings and defending the same and in such view of the matter, the case of the revision petitioners that they are unaware of the dismissal of the first appeal on account of the first revision petitioner's illness and the treatment taken by him in Kerala with reference to the same, as such, cannot be countenanced readily. As rightly determined by the First Appellate Court, when it is noted that the revision petitioners are well aware of the dismissal of the first appeal much earlier in point of time, even thereafter, they have not evinced interest to restore the appeal. Furthermore, the alleged cause projected by the revision petitioners for the delay i.e., illness and the treatment said to have been taken by the first revision petitioner, as regards the particulars of the same, no clear case has been projected and in such view of the matter, the Court below is found to have rightly assessed the rival contentions and the materials placed on record in the correct perspective and determined that no valid cause has been projected by the revision petitioners to condone the delay and even not endeavoured to sustain the case by placing acceptable and reliable materials. 8. In such view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Court below. 9. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.