JUDGMENT :

A.K. Padhi, J. - Plaintiff is the appellant. Appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The admitted relationship as per the genealogy is as follows :

Brusabha

- W. Nirasa Bewa (D. 2)

|

____________________________|_____________________________

| | | |

Aditya (died) Tirtha (son) Mathura (son) Uttama (daughter)

in 1980) (D. 1) (D. 3) died (D. 4)

= Tilotama on 25-4-1982

During pendency of the suit defendant No. 2 died. On 25-4-1982 defendant No. 3 died leaving behind her husband, sons and a daughter as her legal representatives. The advocate for the defendants filed a memo intimating the Court regarding the death of defendant No. 3. In spite of the intimation by the advocate for the defendant No. 3, the plaintiff did not take any step for substitution in time. An application for substitution was filed without being supported by an affidavit. Only on 16-11-1982 after the abatement had set in, applications for substitution, to set aside the abatement along with an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act were filed. The advocate for the defendant filed objection asserting that as plaintiff after being duly intimated about the death of defendant No.