1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Sri Nandan Prasad Singh appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned counsel Mr. Ratan Kumar Sinha appearing on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 1 on the Interlocutory Application No. 1188 of 2014.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellants for substituting the legal representatives of the deceased respondent nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 14.

3. At the time of hearing of this application the learned counsel Mr. Sri Nandan Prasad Singh for the appellants submitted that respondent nos. 2, 9, 10, 11 and 14 neither appeared nor filed written statement in the court below, therefore, although he has filed the application for substitution, the appellants may be exempted from substituting the legal representatives of the deceased respondent nos. 2, 9, 10, 11 and 14 in view of the provision as contained in Order 22 Rule 4 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 series has got no objection.

5. Accordingly, so far the substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent nos. 2, 9, 10, 11 and 14 are concerned, the appellants are exempted from substituting their legal representatives.

6. So far the substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 1 is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellant No. 1, who is aged about more than 80 years is the pairvikar of the case and was not aware of the legal procedure, therefore, there is delay in filing a substitution application. A separate limitation application has been filed for condoning the delay i.e. I.A. No. 1189 of 2014. According to the learned counsel, one of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 1 filed application for passing an order to the effect that the appeal has abated and, therefore, the appellant No. 4 came to Patna and the learned counsel advised him to file substitution application and then the appellant No. 4 went back to collect the names and date of death and address of the heirs of deceased respondent and thereafter the appellant No. 6 came back to Patna on 09.02.2014 and the instant substitution application has been filed. On these grounds the learned counsel submitted that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause. The learned counsel further submitted that the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that instead of deciding/dismissing the appeal on technical ground or on the ground of limitation the appeal should be heard on merit and moreover when the appellants have no knowledge about the procedure, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in many decisions has held that the delay normally should be condoned.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 1 relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court, Katari Suryanarayana and Others vs. Koppisetti Subba Rao and Others, AIR 2009 SC 2907 and submitted that in fact the false affidavit has been sworn by the appellant No. 6 and false statements have been made to the effect that the appellant No. 1 is the pairvikar of the appeal. The learned counsel submitted that appellant No. 6 is practicing advocate in Civil Court, Motihari, who has sworn the affidavit. Had the appellant No. 1 been the pairvikar, he should have sworn the affidavit. Moreover, it is not expected that an old person, who is aged about more than 80 years, can be said to be the pairvikar in view of the fact that he has got other more than three sons, who all are already on record of this appeal. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, this statement has been made only with a view to suit the case of the appellants. On this ground, the learned counsel submitted that the application for condoning the delay and substitution application be dismissed.

8. Perused the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent.

9. It appears that in that case before the Hon’bl