Heard Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. M. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the O.P. No.1. None appears for the OP No.2.

2. This is an application filed under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Rule 9(2) of the CPC for setting aside abatement of the writ petition due to non-substitution of the legal heirs of the writ petitioner No.3 with a further prayer to bring on record the legal heirs of the writ petitioner No.3 by means of substitution.

3. It appears from the record that the petitioner No.3 in this case had expired on 02.07.2014. However, the application for substitution has been made only on 22.09.2015 after a delay of 293 days.

4. Raising strong objection to the prayer of substitution the OP No.1 has filed a written objection denying and disputing the grounds taken in the application.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the grounds taken in the application.

6. On due consideration of the explanation furnished in the application, I am of the view that the applicant has been able to furnish sufficient explanation for the delay. The prayer for substitution and setting aside abatement, therefore, deserves to be al