' SABIHUDDIN AHMAD, J.---In both these applications, it is prayed that legal heirs of the petitioner late Akhtarunnisa may be substituted for the original petitioner, who died on 5-4-1998. The petition was presented on 3-3-1990, but no list of presumptive legal representatives, in terms of Order 7, Rule 26, was filed. It was admitted for regular hearing and therefore, certain amendments in the memo, of petition were sought, which was granted and the amended petition was, filed on 2-9- 1992. However, when it was fixed for regular hearing on 30-9-1999, it was dismissed for default on that date as nobody appeared even at the second call.
2. An application for restoration (C.M.A. No. 4552 of 2000) under section 151, C.P.C. Was moved on 6- 10-2000 alongwith another application (C.M.A. No. 4991 of 2000) under Order XXII, Rule 3, showing the names of legal representatives of Begum Akhtarunnisa sought to be joined. In the affidavit, in support of two applications, it was contended that the original petitioner expired on 5-4-1998 and the applicants acquired knowledge of the dismissal of the petition only about one week prior to the filing of the applications.
3. On the above grounds, the condonation of delay in moving application was sought. Indeed, the contention that the applicants became aware of the dismissal about a year after the actual dismissal of the petition could be plausible. The delay for the purpose of considering whether sufficient cause for condonation existed in our humble opinion, however, would not reckon from the actual date of dismissal for non-prosecution but from the date of demise of the deceased petitioner.
4. Mr. Abdul Aziz Khan laid great emphasis on the fact that thepetition had come up for hearing after seven years,. We do not, however consider that to be a relevant consideration. The law appears to be that, upon the demise of any plaintiff or petitioner, the legal heirs of such petitioner may approach the Court and apply for being substituted as petitioner. Even if they chose not to do so, the judgment delivered would be binding upon them. In the fact of the case, admittedly all the applicants were aware of the demise of the deceased petitioner and were duly bound to apply to the Court within the prescribed time to be joined. If they chose to wait till adverse order was passed, they did so, entirely at their own risk.
5. Mr. Aziz Khan, also laid stress on the fact that the petitioners' plot had been unlawfully occupied by the Police and a Police Station had been set up therein. In this context he referred to the amendments in the Petition through paras 16-A to 16-D incorporated in the petition. Interestingly however in para 16-A she mentioned that she saw the plot being occupied by the police while she was travelling with her husband and it could be safely assumed that he was aware of the proceedings before this Court. Nevertheless he himself being a legal heir never bothered to apprise the Court of her demise.
6. For these reasons, we find no substance in either of the two applications and we are constrained to dismiss the same.
' The petitioner may, however, approach this Court or any other Court in appropriate proceedings for redressal of any grievance that may have been arisen.