though the appellant is aware that the notices issued to respondents 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 (plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8) have been returned with the endorsement “expired”, he has not so far taken steps to implead their legal heirs. C.M.Appln.No.159 of 2012 in R.F.A.No.97 of 2012 is even today not ripe for hearing. The fact that respondents 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 in R.F.A.No.97 of 2012 who are none other than plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 are no more was known to the second defendant in O.S.No.391 of 1995 even before the remanded trial of the suit commenced. He had in the year 2011 filed R.P.No.100 of 2011 seeking a review of the decree and judgment of this Court in A.S.No.230 of 2000 by which the decree dismissing O.S.No.391 of 1994 was set aside and suit was remanded for fresh trial and disposal. In that review petition he had contended that four among the respondents had expired even before the decree was passed and therefore the appeal had abated. The review petition was dismissed by order passed on 16.2.2011. It was only thereafter that O.S.No.391 of 1994 was tried and disposed of afresh by judgment delivered on 29.8.2011. The petitioner cannot therefore be heard to contend that he is unaware of the death of some among the respondents in R.F.A.No.97 of 2012. I therefore find merit and force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the attempt of the petitioner is only to delay the
