Ignorance of legal proceedings and formalities by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff constitutes "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay in filing the application for substitution of legal representatives and setting aside the abatement.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in this revision petition have assailed the order dated 12. 10. 1995, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, allowing the applications filed by Sh. Vinod Kumar, legal representative and son of the deceased plaintiff, under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC, and under Order XXII, Rule 9, CPC. The learned Additional District Judge by the impugned order allowed the submission of the applicant Sh. Vinod Kumar in place of the deceased plaintiff and set aside the abatement.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the case may be noticed :

(I) The plaintiff Hans Raj Fialok expired on 17. 4. 1993. The Counsel of the defendant had so informed the Counsel for the plaintiff on 17. 9. 1993. The plaintiff s Counsel thereupon contacted the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and an application under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC, for substitution of Sh. Vinod Kumar son of the deceased plaintiff on the basis of a will in his favour, was moved on 10. 12. 1993. An application for setting aside the abatement under Order XXII, Rule 9, CPC, was moved on 23. 1. 1995.

(II) In the application Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC, it was urged that the Counsel for the plaintiff upon learning of the plaintiff s demise, enquired from the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff, who confirmed the factum of death and requested the Counsel to make proper application on the basis of the Will. It was claimed that the legal heirs of the deceased were not aware of the legal formalities and steps to be taken after the death of the plaintiff and as such could not instruct the Counsel earlier for filing the application. The delay in not filing the application was neither intentional nor deliberate. It was caused due to the legal heirs not being aware about the legal formalities and the requirement as to who has to file the application. In the application under Order XXII, Rule 9, CPC, besides reiterating the facts set out in the application under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC, it was specifically averred that the legal heirs of the deceased wee not aware about the legal proceedings and about the formalities to be completed after the death and as such could not instruct the Counsel earlier for moving the application.

( 3 ) THE learned Additional District Judge accepted the explanation of the legal representative on behalf of the deceased plaintiff leaving regard to the fact that the suit was at an initial stage being then for service of the defendants, which did not require regular communication between the plaintiff and his Counsel. It was accepted that the plaintiff s Counsel did not have any information about the death of the plaintiff till 17. 9. 1993. The application under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC, was moved within three months of gaining he knowledge of death. The learned Additional District Judge accepted that there was "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay as there was want of knowledge of the death of the plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge further held that it was not a case of negligence on part of the Counsel for the plaintiff and ignorance and lack of information of death of plaintiff precluded taking of requisite steps.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the suit stood abated upon expiry of three months i. e. on 17. 7. 1993 and the application after six months moved for substitution was barred by limitation. Learned Counsel argued that there was no sufficient cause for not moving the application under Order XXII, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code and that the deceased plaintiff had failed to explain each days delay and to make out "sufficient cause". Learned Counsel submitted that the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff had claimed lack of knowledge of legal formalities and not lack of knowledge of legal proceedings. Learned Counsel urged that it was the negligence of the legal representative of deceased plaintiff since it was neither the duty nor the obligation