Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Original Suit No. 1028 of 1974, Ramayan and another v. Ramjiyawan and another, was filed for the relief of recovery of possession and permanent injunction. This suit was dismissed by the judgment dated 10.2.1978 of Ist Additional Munsif, Gorakhpur. Against this judgment of trial Court, Civil Appeal No. 163 of 1978 Ramayan and another v. Ramjiyawan and another, was preferred, which was heard and partly allowed, and original suit No. 1028/1974 was partly decreed by judgment dated 21.2.1980. against the judgment dated 21.2.1980 of first appellate Court Second Appeal No. 1505 of 1980 Ramayan and another v. Ramjiyawan and another, was preferred by the two plaintiffs of the original suit against the two defendants of the original suit, which was admitted on 8.9.1980 by this Court.

2. During pendency of this second appeal all parties of this second appeal, both appellants and both respondents had died.

3. The respondent side had moved Abatement application No. 242955/2015 (dated 22.7.2015) when no party was substituted after the death of all appellants and respondents. This was supported by affidavit of Sant Lal, son of original respondent No. 2 Bhogai. In this affidavit it is written that (1) appellant No. 1 died in year 1992, (2) appellant No. 2 died in year 1994, (3) respondent No. 1 died in year 2010, and (4) respondent No. 2 died in year 1995; so this appeal should be dismissed as abated.

4. Substitution application No. 218246/2015 was filed for substitution of deceased appellants No. 1 and 2, stating that there is no legal heir of deceased appellant No. 1 Ramayan (died on 10.8.1992), and deceased appellant No. 2 Satya Narayan (died on 2.11.1994) should be substituted by his two sons.

5. Admittedly no substitution application was moved within the period of limitation, so appeal had already abated. It has to be considered as to whether, for the reasons mentioned in delay condonation application for condoning delay in moving the same, the abatement of this second appeal may be set aside and dealay condonation application may be allowed.

6. Substitution Application No. 218243/2015 was filed for substitution of deceased respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in which date of death of respondent No. 1 was mentioned as 5.11.2010 and date of death of respondent No. 2 was mentioned as 10.3.1995. An application No. 218240/2015 for condonation of delay (dated 5.7.2015) is also filed alongwith this substitution application. These applications are supported with affidavit of Chandra Bhan Pal, son of appellant No. 2 Satya Narain, aged about 60 years. Only said Chandra Bhan Pal had filed his Vakalatnama.

7. The grounds for condonation of delay in filing substitution applications is mentioned in affidavit dated 5.7.2015 of Chandra Bhan Pal, which is as under:

“That deponent is not aware about the case which is pending before this Hon’ble Court and father of the applicant had never say about the case which is pending before this Hon’ble Court when deponent started construction the house in disputed plot then son of opposite party say that there is a case pending before Hon’ble High Court then deponent enquire about the case on 8.7.2015 deponent came to knowledge about case.”

8. At the time of hearing on above application on 8.1.2016 point of non filing of Vakalatnama on behalf of proposed appellants was raised, and matter was adjourned on request of counsel for the appellant for today. But no Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the proposed legal representative No. 2 of deceased appellant No. 2.

9. In both affidavits dated 5.7.2015, the deponent mentioned the date of knowledge of this second appeal as on 8.7.2015. There may be possibility of clerical error in mentioning correct date, but in fact, correct date of alleged knowledge was not informed to Court. The date/time of alleged start of construction were also not informed.

10. The appellant No. 1 Ramayan died on 10.8.1992, the appellant No. 2 was alive. So for su