The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay in filing petitions for substitution, emphasizing the need for a satisfactory explanation and considering the circumstances of the case.

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard the parties.

2. Interlocutory Application No.1390 of 2017 has been filed by the appellants with the prayer for substitution of the legal heirs/representatives of the deceased respondent Nos.3, 6, 7 and 8 and also to implead Ernest Oraon as proforma respondent No.15 after condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement, if any.

3. Interlocutory Application No.1391 of 2017 has been filed by the appellants with a prayer for condoning the delay in filing the petition for substitution of the legal heirs/representatives of the respondent Nos.3, 6, 7 and 8.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent No.3 namely Pascal Oraon died on 06.03.2009 leaving behind his only two legal representatives whose names, parentage and addresses have been mentioned in paragraph -11 of the Interlocutory Application No.1390 of 2017. It is further submitted that Ernest Oraon who is one of the sons of the said respondent No.3 Pascal Oraon but Ernest Oraon has been adopted by the appellant No.1 and his interest is co-terminus with the appellant No.1 hence instead of Ernest Oraon being impleaded as a legal representative of the respondent No.3, it is prayed that he should be made pro-forma respondent No.15.

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that respondent Nos. 4 to 13 were the pro-forma defendants in the suit filed by the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 as plaintiffs in the trial court.

6. This Second Appeal after admission, was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order of this court vide order No.22 dated 10.11.2004 and C.M.P. No.120 of 2005 was filed for restoration of this Second Appeal to file and in the said C.M.P. notices were validly served upon the respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 in the year 2014, consequent upon the acknowledgment cards of the registered letters having returned after the same were received by one Kristina Ekka sometime between December, 2013 and January, 2014. C.M.P. No.120 of 2005 was allowed in terms of the order dated 05.02.2015 and this Second Appeal was restored to its original file.

7. On 30.01.2017, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a petition under Order XXII, Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby they intimated that Respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 namely Matius Oraon, Angelus Oraon & Yakub Oraon respectively have died leaving behind their legal heirs/representatives. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Respondent No.6 namely Matius Oraon died on 02.01.2007 leaving behind his only three legal representatives whose names, parentage and addresses have been mentioned in para-8 of the Interlocutory Application No.1390 of 2017. Respondent No.7 namely Angelus Oraon died on 18.08.2001 leaving behind his only three legal representatives whose names, parentage and addresses have been mentioned in para-9 of the Interlocutory Application No.1390 of 2017 and Respondent No.8 namely Yakub Oraon died in April 2004 leaving behind his only three legal representatives whose names, parentage and addresses have been mentioned in para-10 of the Interlocutory Application No.1390 of 2017. It is further submitted that appellant No.1 is a tribal lady of 80 years of age and she is a rustic lady living in a remote village and is not aware of intricacies of law and requirements of substitution of the legal representatives of a deceased party to a civil proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that the delay in filing the petition for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent Nos.3, 6, 7 and 8 be condoned and the abatement, if any, be set aside and the legal representatives of the deceased respondent Nos. 3, 6, 7 and 8 be substituted in their place.

8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom Perinadu Village v. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by L.Rs. and Others., (2008) AIRSCW 6025 wherein in para