to 15 were set exparte on 29.01.2017 where as Defendants No.11 and 12 contested theo.A. and after conducting triar, the o.A. was ailowed on 16.08.2018. As per the record, it is further clear that Defendant No.15 is father of Defendant No.14 and there is no dispute regarding the fact that the Petitioner herein is wife of Defendant No.14. Even though, Defendants No' 14&15 appeared through their counser, faired to fire their written statement and so they were set exparte on 28.01.2017. There is no dispute regarding the fact that said Sri Narne Anoop Kumar who is Defendant No.15 in the o.A. died on 02.03.2018 and Defendant No.14, Aswin Kumar died on 03.12.2020. In fact, as per the version of the Respondents herein, the Petitioner herein was impreaded as L. R. of Defendants No.14&15 in the recovery proceedings initiated by the Respondents herein. So as per the record, it is crear that even though Defendant No.15 died on 02.03.2018, the Appricants in the oA, did not initiate any steps for impreading the LRs of deceased Defendant No.15. without even informing to this Tribunar about the death of defendant No.15 and without impreading the regar heirs of deceased Defendant No.15, the Applicants in the O.A. obtained exparte decree against the Defendant No.15. Had the Applicants in the O.A. impleaded the LRs of deceased Defendant No.15, they would have contested the O.A. 168/13.
