The substance of the application and its supporting affidavit should be examined to determine if the prayer for setting aside abatement is implicit, regardless of the absence of an explicit prayer for setting aside abatement.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, challenging the order dated 11-1-2001 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) passed by learned First Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghaziabad.

( 2 ) IT appears that Original Suit No. 20 of 1984 was filed by one Tek Chand against Ram Bal and others. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 6-12-1988 by VIth Addl. Munsif, Ghaziabad. Thereupon, the plaintiff, Tek Chand (respondent No. 1 herein) filed an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 198 of 1988. The said Civil Appeal No. 198 of 1988 was allowed by the learned IIIrd Addl. Civil Judge, Ghaziabad by his judgment and order dated 30-1-1991 whereby the judgment and order dated 6-12-1988 was set aside, and the matter was remanded for being decided afresh.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the suit after remand, it appears that Hemi, son of Raje (defendant No. 8 in the suit) died, and an application dated 18-8-2000 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) was filed on behalf of the defendants in the suit, inter alia stating that the said Hemi, Son of Raje (defendant No. 8 in the suit) had expired in the year 1997, and the said suit had abated.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, an application dated 7-9-2000 under Order XXII, Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit. It was inter alia, stated in the said application dated 7-9-2000 that Ram Pal (defendant No. 5 in the suit) had expired, and the sole heir and legal representative Ram Bal was already on record as defendant No. 1 in the said suit. It was, inter alia, further stated in the said application that Hemi, son of Raje (defendant No. 8 in the said suit) had expired on 29-12-1997, and his heirs and legal representatives mentioned in the said application be substituted. The prayer for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also made in the said application. The said application was supported by an affidavit of Tek Chand (plaintiff in the said suit) sworn on 7-9-2000. The said affidavit is part of Anneuxre No. 4 to the writ petition.

( 5 ) THE objection dated 22-11-2000 supported by an affidavit (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) was filed on behalf of the defendants against the application dated 7-9-2000 filed on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit.

( 6 ) BY an order dated 11-1-2001, the learned Ist Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Ghaziabad allowed the said substitution application filed on behalf of the plaintiff, and rejected the objection filed on behalf of the defendants in the suit. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

( 7 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order was passed on 11-1-2001. This writ petition filed by the petitioner is highly belated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the explanation for delay is contained in paragraph No. 15 of the writ petition. I have perused paragraph No. 15 of the writ petition. The explanation contained in the said paragraph is totally vague and lacking in material particulars. The said paragraph does not contain any proper explanation for the delay. It merely says that the petitioner is an illiterate poor widow and therefore, she could not manage to file this writ petition within time, and only after making the necessary arrangement she is filing this writ petition before this Court. Thus, the petitioner has not been able to explain the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

( 8 ) HOWEVER, even otherwise, having perused the impugned order, I do not find that the learned Court below has committed any illegality in passing the same. The learned Court below has rightly rejected the technical objection raised on behalf of the defendants that there was no specific prayer for setting aside the abatement.

( 9 ) A perusal of the application dated 7-9-2000. (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petitio