J.K. Jain, J.

1. Shri Rajendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri A. Vikas, Advocate on behalf of Shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

Shri L.L. Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 3 State.

Heard I.A. No. 6701/2014, an application under Order XXII Rule 4; I.A. No. 1761/2015, an application under Order XXII Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code and I.A. No. 8567/2014 and 1762/2015 applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that respondent No. 1 has expired, therefore, for substitution of his legal representatives the appellant has filed this application. Appellant could not file the application in time as the appellant is a Municipal Corporation and its employees were busy in the election. Meanwhile, appeal against the respondent has abated, therefore, the application for setting aside the abatement has been filed along with the application for condonation of delay. It is true that there is some delay in filing the application. The delay is bona fide, therefore, it may be condoned. He submits that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.D. Vai