JUDGMENT :

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

1.This is an appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against the judgment / order dated 01.02.2014 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi in L. A. Case No. 70 of 2004 subsequently converted into Title Suit No. 11 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the application for grant of letters of administration filed under Section 232 read with Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, has been dismissed by the Probate Court.

2.The application has been dismissed mainly on the ground that as per the case of the applicant, a registered deed of Will was executed on 28.09.1959 by Jaishree Devi with respect to property detailed in Schedule-B of the application in favour of Ratan Lal Sahu & Banshidhar Sahu, whereas the executrix died in the year 1982 and the application for letters of administration was filed in the year 2004, after long time i.e., almost 20 years. Learned Probate Court held that the application was barred by limitation under Section 137 of the Limitation Act.

I.A. No. 11556 of 2024

3.Heard, learned counsel on behalf of the Proforma Respondent No. 44 in I.A. No. 11556 of 2024, which has been filed under Order XXIII Rule 1-A of the Civil Procedure Code for transposition in place of the appellant, who died during the pendency of the appeal on 25.10.2023.

4.It is argued by the learned counsel that he was a beneficiary in the registered Will dated 28.09.1959 executed by the testator, Jaishree Devi and was a co-applicant before the learned Probate Court for grant of letters of administration. In view of the fact that belated step was taken for substitution on the death of the appellant for condonation of delay, the petition for transposition has been filed by Respondent No. 44.

5.This Court is of the view that transposition cannot be allowed for the reason that transposition can be allowed only on two grounds as stated in Order XXIII Rule 1A CPC, i.e., where the original plaintiff has abandoned, or withdrawn from pursuing the case. Further, this is a provision specifically applicable to the suits as after the disposal of the suit, any of the party has right to file an appeal or file cross objection against the findings in the impugned judgment. Under Order XLI Rule 4 of the CPC, where there are more plaintiff or defendant in a suit, and the decree appealed from proceeds on a ground common to them all or any one plaintiff or defendant may appeal from the said judgment.

6.In the present appeal, there has not been any withdrawal or abandonment, but it has abated on the death of the appellant.

7.Under the circumstance the petition for transposition is without any merit and the interlocutory application accordingly stands dismissed.

I.A. No. 13754 of 2024 & I.A. No. 13755 of 2024

9. Heard, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant in I.A. No. 13764 of 2024 filed under XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and I.A. No. 13755 of 2024 which has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay of about 320 days in filing the substitution petition.

10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that legal heirs/successor was not aware of legal implication and consequences and requirement of substitution, therefore, the instant petition could not be filed within time.

11.Generally, the petition for condonation of delay is considered liberally so that lis is decided on merit and substantive justice does not suffer. However, there should be some ground which inspires confidence of the Court regarding its genuineness. If condonation applications are allowed too liberally without any basis, provisions of the limitation Act will be rendered redundant .in the present Case there is an inordinate delay in filing the substitution petition of the appellant and no ground for the delay has been assigned, except the plea that the parties were in ignorance of provision of law. Ignorantia juris non excusat is the fundamental principle of law. It c