Advocates:
D.R.Prem, K.K.JAIN, P.C.Khanna, P.D.MENON, Veda Vyasa

Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:

• The suit had abated due to the failure of the appellant to take timely steps for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased respondent (!) (!) .
• The court emphasized that there is no distinction between the expressions "sufficient cause" and "good cause," and that a cause deemed good would generally be sufficient for the court's consideration (!) .
• An application for adding legal representatives is necessary; the court cannot act suo motu under this rule (!) .
• Limitation for filing such applications runs from the date of death, not from the date of the applicant’s knowledge of the death (!) .
• The expression "sufficient cause" should be construed liberally, but the court must scrutinize the evidence supporting the allegations rather than accepting bare assertions (!) .
• Delay in substitution based on ignorance of death can be justified if the applicant demonstrates reasons that prevented knowledge within a reasonable time, and these reasons are supported by allegations in the application (!) .
• The prayer for setting aside abatement is implicit in the prayer for substitution, and the limitation period is three months, starting from the date of death (!) .
• The burden is on the applicant to prove that they were prevented by sufficient cause from acting within the prescribed period; mere ignorance of death is not automatically sufficient (!) .
• The applicant must provide reasons explaining why they did not know of the death earlier; the court will evaluate whether these reasons are satisfactory (!) .
• The court should not accept default allegations without proper support and must examine the evidence to determine if the cause for delay is sufficient (!) .
• The procedural rules require an application to be made for bringing legal representatives on record; failure to do so within the prescribed time results in abatement (!) (!) .
• The suit's abatement prevents the institution of a new suit based on the same cause of action, unless the abatement is set aside (!) .
• The court's inherent power cannot be invoked suo motu to implead legal representatives if the suit has abated due to neglect or default (!) .
• The court's role is to ensure justice by considering whether the applicant's reasons for delay are justified, rather than strictly adhering to procedural technicalities (!) .

Please let me know if you need further assistance or a more detailed analysis.