6 . From perusal of the impugned order dated 11.9.2014, it shows that applicant Nos.3 and 4, Lidiya Kumar and Minakshi Kumar were present in person along with their counsel before the Court below at the time of order passed by the Court below on 11.9.2014, which shows that the applicants were knowledge through their counsel and also vide the presence of the applicants 3 and 4 that the order under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. is allowed and the decree holder/applicant was directed to substitute the applicants as LRs of the judgment debtor. If the applicants were present before the Family Court at Raipur and they were represented through a counsel, in the present I.A.No.1/2015 it is nowhere mentioned as to why they have not filed the instant Civil Revision within time before this Court which is situated at a half distance as compared to Korba to Raipur. It shall be the duty of the applicants to explain the delay satisfactorily and same may not be accepted on a general and vague allegations. As the matter is related to the maintenance granted by an authority of law and also one more litigation as shown in Annexure P/8 seems to be pending before 1st Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur between the parties, present respondent and all the present applicants it also shows that more than one litigations are pending between the present parties and the applicants are also contesting the other litigations.
