5] Having said so, learned Single Judge from para 24 onwards referred to the conduct of the parties with reference to delay in filing the chamber summons to bring the legal heirs of defendant No.1 on record. Along with the chamber summons these two letters, i.e., 29th July 2014 and the reply by the plaintiffs dated 11th August 2014 were never annexed. However, in order to explain the delay why the application could not be filed, these two letters are relied upon by the plaintiffs. There is mentioning of request on the part of the plaintiffs to furnish a copy of the family arrangement as referred to in the letter dated 29th July 2014. Apparently, till this date, copy of the said family arrangement was not furnished to the plaintiffs. It is quite possible for the plaintiffs to bring on record the legal representatives, whose details were already disclosed in the letter dated 29th July 2014, instead of waiting for the copy of the family arrangement. In the perception of the party and his/her advocate why such family settlement was required is better understood by the party and the advocate. The fact remains that there is delay in filing the chamber summons. However, the two letters now brought on record explain, according to the appellants, that they would be waiting for the copy of the family arrangement and, therefore, there is delay. However, this reasoning was not mentioned in the chamber summons. In other words, the present chamber summons was not without a reason as explained by the appellants' counsel, but the same was not mentioned in the chamber summons. To substantiate
