JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - Order dated 28.8.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Contai, Purba Medinipur in Misc. Appeal no. 4 of 2015 has been assailed in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, the court below dismissed the appeal which was preferred against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division 1st Court, Contai in connection with Judicial Misc. Case no. 51 of 2013 in Title Suit no. 163 of 2006.

2. On 14th July, 2016, the plaintiff, namely Bishnupada Ghosh filed aforesaid suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants/opposite parties herein. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff/petitioners wherein they inter alia prayed for a decree of declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the "Ka" schedule property. In the said suit, the plaintiff/petitioners filed an application for injunction against the opposite parties but said prayer for injunction was rejected on 10.5.2010 on contested hearing. The appeal was preferred before the appellate court. During pendency of the said Misc. appeal, the sole plaintiff died on 20.12.2011. Thereafter, on 6.9.2013, the said Misc. appeal was dismissed for default and the lower court records were sent before the trial court.

3. Though aforesaid sole plaintiff died during the pendency of the Misc. appeal on 20.12.2011, his legal heirs failed to file application for substitution before the appellate court. On 12.12.2013, the legal heirs of said erstwhile sole plaintiff filed the substitution petition along with an application under Order XXII rule 9 of the Code read with an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , which was registered as J. Misc. case no. 51 of 2013. On 3.1.2015, the trial court rejected the petitioners application under Order XXII rule 9 of the Code, supported by an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT ex parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Against said order, the petitioner preferred Misc. appeal being No. 4 of 2015 before the appellate court. The learned Appellate court also pleased to dismiss the Misc. Appeal by the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the court below has committed mistake by rejecting the application under order XXII rule 9 and the application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT only on technical ground that lack of knowledge in law, which they have averred in their application, is of no excuse, without considering other legal aspects. The court below practically misunderstood the issue by not considering prayer of the petitioners that they were really not involved with the pendency of the said suit. The petitioners case is that immediate after coming to know about the facts of the pending civil suit, they contacted with their advocate and according to the advice of the learned advocate, they filed the substitution application along with application for setting aside the abatement. He further submits that the order passed by both the courts, are not supported by logical reason and has no factual nexus in respect of the suit. The order is absolutely illegal, wrong and has been passed without application of Judicial mind and as such prayed for setting aside the order impugned.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties raised strong objection and contended that the petitioners have specifically pleaded that due ignorance of law, they could not make the said application in time before the concerned court. It is well settled that the ignorance of law is of no excuse and it is also not believable that the petitioners who reside in the same family of the deceased were, ignorant of