An appellant must demonstrate sufficient cause for failing to substitute a deceased respondent; mere ignorance of death is inadequate.

1. The State of Uttar Pradesh preferred a First appeal against an order made by the Civil Judge, Bijnor, in a reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act . During the pendency of the appeal Nauratan Singh the sole respondent died on 15th of December, 1960 and on 5th of March, 1965 an application was made by the State of Uttar Pradesh for bringing the legal representatives of the since deceased respondent on record. This application was accompanied by an application under S.5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit filed by one Sri J.S. Rajput. Land Acquisition Clerk in the Office of the Collector Bijnor. In the aforesaid affidavit it was stated in the main that the fact of death of the since deceased respondent was conveyed for the first time on 26th of February, 1965 when at the time of the hearing of the first appeal a statement was made by the learned counsel appearing for thy respondent that the respondent died on 15th of December, 1960. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Smt. Rani Prakashwati, the widow of the since deceased respondent that the appellant became aware of the fact of her husband's death soon after his death. It was stated therein that on the death of the aforesaid respondent all firearms of which licence was held by him were surrendered to the Collector, Bijnor and that on an application made by her the licences for the fire arms were granted to her on 31st July, 1961.
It was also stated therein that an application for the mutation of her name was given by her which was allowed by the Tahsildar Nagina district Bijnor and further that after the death of her husband several letters were received by her from the office of the Collector Bijnor some of which were dated 18th of September, 1962 and 20th of June, 1963 which indicated that the Collector, Bijnor and his office were aware of the death of her husband. Subsequent to the filing of the counter affidavit the appellant filed supplementary affidavits by the aforesaid Sri Rajput, by the Land Acquisition Officer. Bijnor by Officers who had held the office of the Collector, Bijnor during the period between the date of death of the sole respondent and February, 1965, and by officers under whose signatures the letters relied upon in the counter - affidavit were issued. The main allegations which were made in those affidavits were (1) that the record pertaining to the aforesaid first appeal was consigned to the Record Room on 25th of August, 1957, after proceedings regarding translation and printing of the paper book had been completed, that the aforesaid file was requisitioned from the record room on receipt of a letter from the Standing Counsel, Allahabad, dated 8th of September, 1964 in connection with the settlement of certain accounts in connection with the First Appeal and when the account matter was dealt with the file was again consigned to the record room and was requisitioned again on receipt of a letter from the standing Counsel for the making of enquiry about the alleged death of the respondent; (2) that the Collector, Bijnor and the Tahsildar Nagina were not aware of the pendency of the instant appeal, when the licences for fire arms were granted in favour of the widow of the deceased respondent or her name was mutated in the revenue papers as against the landed property : (3) that the Land Acquisition officer or his office were not aware of the fact of the death of the respondent until letter was received from the office of the Standing Counsel in February 1965; and (4) that the delay in the making of the substitution application was not occasioned