Ignorance of law is no defence in law, but the realities of life, the Courts of law cannot afford to overlook.

R.C. Lahoti, J.

1. Should the procedural ponderables and technical troublers, such as plea of bar of limitation, be permitted to obstruct the path of justice and defeat rightful claims even though the law, justice and equity all demand the otherwise, is a question to be answered in this order. Indeed they are applications under Order 22, Rule 4, read with Rule 9, of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 5 of the Limitation Act coming up for disposal in bit little peculiar facts and circumstances to be noticed hereinafter.

2. The plaintiff, a widow lady in her fiftees, knocked the doors of this Court in the year 1970, raising a substantial grievance of having been deprived of her bread and butter by the defendant having succeeded in coaxing her into executing a deed of sale, adjudged by this Court vide its judgment dated 12-8 1991 to be fictitious document. It is notable that one-half share in 37 Bighas and 16 Biswas of agricultural land in district of Vidisha, where the land is valuable, was outwardly parted with for a paltry amount of Rs. 800/-recited as consideration in the purported deed of sale. The plaintiff had lost from the two courts below. This Court vide its judgment dated 12-8-1991 allowed the appeal, decreeing the suit, declaring the sale-deed to be a fictitious and nominal deed of sale, not binding on the plaintiff, leaving liberty open to the defendant to seek return of the amount of loan advanced by him to the plaintiff.

3. The appeal was heard on 19-7-1991 in the presence of learned counsel for both the parties. The judgment was delivered on 12-8-1991. None of parties or their counsel informed the Court, if any one had expired. It turned out a mirage to hope that the old litigation commenced in the year 1979 and indeed an old Second appeal of the year 1972, having languished in this Court for more than 12 years, had come to an end.

4. On 1 -2-1992 one Mohammed Mustafa moved an application inviting the attention of the Court to the fact that Sikandar Khan, the sole respondent in S. A. No. 53/79 had expired on 11-8-1988 and inasmuch as the appeal was heard and decided without the legal representatives having been brought on record, the judgment was a nullity, liable to be recalled, and the appeal deserved a dismissal as abated. The factum of death was not disputed by the appellant Biniyabai on being noticed. On 17-10-1992 this Court, as duty bound, annulled its judgment and decree dated 12 -8 -1991, directing the appeal to be relisted for hearing. These were the proceedings in M.C.C. No. 54/92.

5. On 2-11-1992 applications under Order 22, Rule 4/9, Civil Procedure Code and Section 5 of the Limitation Act were filed by Biniyabai proposing to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent and seeking setting aside of the abatement as also condonation of delay in moving the applications. It was stated that the factum of death of Sikandar khan and the necessity of moving these applications became alive to the widow appellant on the application having been moved in M.C.C. No. 54/92 and notice thereof having been served on her. The appellant Biniyabai further submitted that being an old illiterate rustic woman she was not aware of the legal position, that is, the necessity of moving such applications. The defendant/respondent's counsel had also not disclosed the factum of death of respondent during the hearing of the appeal. She contacted her counsel, took steps in moving the applications and sought for condonation of delay.

6. The applications have been contested tooth and nail presumably because the legal representatives feel that here only they may succeed, failing which they might not have any chance of success on merits in so far as the appeal is concerned.

7. At the hearing Shri R.D. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the respondent, with his usual thrust and gusto assisted by legal acumen and armed with armoury of precedents raised a number of contentions, listed