ORDER : ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. The instant civil miscellaneous application is preferred in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 198/2008, which was dismissed in abatement on 07-11-2024. 2. Besides the present Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos. 1/2025, 2/2025, 3/2025 and 4/2025 have also been preferred, and we are deciding all the applications by a common order. 3. Brief facts of the matter are that S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 198/2008 was preferred by the appellants Arjun Singh, Laxmi Chand, legal heirs of Daulat Singh (Harpyari and Lakhanlal) and Harveer Singh against the judgment dated 26-04-2008 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No. 88/2002 (75/2002), decided by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bayana, District Bharatpur. Originally, a civil suit was filed by Janglia (since dead) against Arjun Singh, Laxmi Chand, Daulat Singh and Harveer Singh for specific performance of contract before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bayana, District Bharatpur, but the same was dismissed on 14-01-1999. Aggrieved plaintiff Janglia filed a first appeal, which was allowed on 26-04-2008 and the suit was decreed. 4. During pendency of Second Appeal No. 198/2008, which was pending for admission, the matter was listed before this Court on 07-11-2024. It has come to the notice that the sole respondent/plaintiff Janglia had expired on 24-07-2019, whereas Appellant No. 1 Arjun Singh and Appellant No. 3/1 Harpyari and 3/2 Lakhanlal, both being legal heirs of Daulat Singh, had also expired about 5–6 years before, and no efforts were made to bring their legal representatives on record. Therefore, this Court abated the appeal as a whole. 5. After the order, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Application under Order XXII, Rules 9 and 11, read with Section 151 of the CPC, was filed on 27-03-2025 for setting aside the abatement. Application No. 1/2025 was filed under Order XXII, Rule 4, CPC, for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased respondent Janglia, in the civil second appeal. Application No. 2/2025 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order XXII, Rule 4 of the CPC. Application No. 3/2025 was filed under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC, for impleading the legal representatives of deceased Appellant No. 1 Arjun Singh, Appellant No. 3/1 Harpyari and Appellant No. 3/2 Lakhanlal. Application No. 2/2025 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order XXII, Rule 4 of the CPC. Application No. 3/2025 was filed under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC, for impleading the legal representatives of deceased Appellant No. 1 Arjun Singh, Appellant No. 3/1 Harpyari and Appellant No. 3/2 Lakhanlal. Application No. 4/2025 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the civil miscellaneous application under Order XXII, Rule 3 of the CPC. Along with these applications, an amended cause title was also filed. 6. The material on record clearly indicates that the civil second appeal preferred by the appellants had not been admitted till date, and on 07-11-2024, no one was present on behalf of the surviving appellants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants, while placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Binod Pathak & Ors. Vs. Shankar Chaudhary & Ors. reported as 2025 INSC 842 , submitted that the rationale behind the provision under Order XXII, Rule 10-A is that the counsel appearing on behalf of a party shall intimate the Court about the death of the party along with the proposed legal representatives, and in the instant case, no such application was filed by the counsel for the respondent. He further submitted that Order XXII, Rule 9 is a beneficial provision and when the legal representatives or other surviving parties are able to justify their absence on a particular day and also justify the reasons for delay, the application for condonation of delay is required to be considered liberally. He further submitted that the applicants were unaware of the death of the sole respondent and the legal representatives of the sole respondent, as the learned counsel for the respondent did not place any such details on record. 8. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, and he placed reliance upon the judgments in the cases of Budhram and Ors. Vs. Bansi and Ors. reported as 2010 DNJ (SC) 1045, Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., reported as 2010 DNJ (SC) 849 , and Suresh Chandra (deceased) through LRs. Vs. 8. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, and he placed reliance upon the judgments in the cases of Budhram and Ors. Vs. Bansi and Ors. reported as 2010 DNJ (SC) 1045, Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., reported as 2010 DNJ (SC) 849 , and Suresh Chandra (deceased) through LRs. Vs. Parasram, reported as 2025 INSC 873 , and submitted that Janglia, the sole respondent, had expired on 24-07-2019 and the appellants were aware of the death of Janglia, but they did not move any application for substitution of his legal representatives. He further submitted that three of the five appellants had expired 5–6 years prior to filing of the applications, yet no application for substitution was filed in time, which is sufficient to show deliberate delay on the part of the appellants. He further submitted that the reasons for delay are required to be sufficiently explained and, in the absence of sufficient reasons, this Hon’ble Court cannot condone the delay. 9. He also referred to and relied upon the judgments in the cases of Salam Singh and Others vs. Municipal Council, Peelibanga , reported as 2021 3 DNJ (Raj) 981 , and Shanker though LRs. Vs. P.D. Vergis , reported as 2010 3 DNJ (Raj) 1195 , passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 10.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Also perused the judgment as referred by learned counsel for both the parties. 11. During pendency of the second appeal, the sole respondent (plaintiff) Janglia expired on 24-07-2019. The record of the second appeal indicates that Mr. Dilip Singh Jadon, counsel for the respondent, filed an application on 06-08-2024 after supplying a copy to the counsel for the appellants. When the second appeal was listed on 17-09-2024, it was adjourned to 07-11-2024. On 07-11-2024, no one was present on behalf of the appellants. The application was already on record along with a copy of the death certificate. The death certificate indicates that the sole respondent expired on 24- 07-2019. The aforesaid facts indicate that no opportunity was sought, as the application for intimation of death was already placed on record, though the names of the legal heirs were not mentioned in the application. The application was already on record along with a copy of the death certificate. The death certificate indicates that the sole respondent expired on 24- 07-2019. The aforesaid facts indicate that no opportunity was sought, as the application for intimation of death was already placed on record, though the names of the legal heirs were not mentioned in the application. Even assuming that the names of the legal heirs were not mentioned, the appellants did not made any statement that they were unaware of the legal heirs of the sole respondent. 12.The application submitted by learned counsel for the appellants indicates that Appellant No. 1 Arjun Singh expired on 22-05-2019, whereas Harpyari expired on 9-12-2015 and Lakhanlal expired on 26-11-2016. Three appellants out of five had expired way before the abatement of appeal, and this fact was within the knowledge of the surviving appellants but no application for substitution of their legal representatives was moved. 13. The delay is enormous, and the circumstances clearly indicate that there was negligence on the part of the appellants in pursuing the appeal, which was filed in the year 2008, and on multiple occasions no one was present on behalf of the appellants when the appeal was taken up by the Court. 14.Considering the aforesaid, the principle of law as laid down in the case of Binod Pathak (supra) is not applicable, as the delay in bringing the legal representatives on record is solely attributable to the surviving appellants. 15.In the cases of Balwant Singh (supra), Budh Ram (supra) and Suresh Chandra (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the proposition that sufficient cause must be shown for condonation of delay. 16. Having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out for setting aside the abatement and condonation of delay. Once the abatement is not set aside, Application Nos. 1/2025 to 4/2025 are also liable to be dismissed. 17. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 41/2025 under Order XXII, Rules 9 and 11, read with Section 151 of the CPC, is hereby dismissed. Application Nos. 1/2025, 2/2025, 3/2025 and 4/2025 are also dismissed. 18. No order as to costs.