The court can allow substitution of parties and condone delays in procedural applications if sufficient cause is shown, even after the prescribed period.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER

18 20-01-2026 Re: I.A. No. 3 of 2024 The present interlocutory application has been filed for substituting the names of the heirs and legal representatives of respondent no.1, namely late Sita Ram Jha, who died on 19.05.2014, leaving behind his heirs and legal representatives, whose details are mentioned in paragraph no.2 of the interlocutory application.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the wife of respondent no.1 had predeceased him. It is further submitted that the application for substitution has been filed on 20.01.2024, which is beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

Re: I.A. No. 5 of 2024

3. This interlocutory application has been filed under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for setting aside abatement against respondent no.1 and for condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside abatement.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that earlier Mr. Pranav Ranjan, Mr. Ashiwani Rai and Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma were appearing on behalf of the appellants as junior counsels to the learned senior counsel Mr. Keshav Shrivastava. During the pendency of the appeal, Mr. Pranav Ranjan shifted his practice to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is further submitted that Mr. Ashiwani Rai and Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma subsequently left the office of the learned senior counsel. It is next submitted that Mr. Pranav Ranjan was the conducting counsel for the appellants and all the documents were kept in his office, which were not handed over to the learned senior counsel. It is further submitted that on 15.12.2024, appellant no.2 personally came to Patna and enquired about the status of the case, whereupon he came to know that the aforesaid counsels had left the office of the learned senior counsel. Thereafter, appellant no.2 contacted another counsel, Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad and handed over the file informing him that appellant no.1, namely Smt. Jeemaya Choudharain had died on 18.03.2007 and respondent no.1, Sita Ram Jha had died on 19.05.2014. After receiving the requisite documents, the newly engaged counsel drafted the substitution petition for the deceased appellant no.1 and deceased respondent no.1 along with applications for setting aside abatement and condonation of delay. It is submitted that there has been no deliberate latches either on the part of the appellants or their counsel and the delay occurred due to inadvertence and circumstances beyond their control.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that a supplementary affidavit has been filed bringing on record one of the heirs and legal representatives of respondent no.1, namely Sunil Jha, the fourth son of the deceased, whose name was inadvertently omitted from paragraph no.2 of I.A. No. 3 of 2024 and a prayer has been made for arraying him as a respondent.

6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the averments made in the interlocutory applications, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay.

7. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3 of 2024 and I.A. No. 5 of

2024 are allowed after setting aside abatement and condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside abatement against respondent no.1.

8. Office is directed to delete the name of respondent no.1 from the memo of appeal and substitute his heirs and legal representatives in his place, as mentioned in paragraph no.2 of I.A. No. 3 of 2024, as supplemented by paragraph no.7 of the supplementary affidavit dated 17.12.2025, bringing on record the fourth son of late Sita Ram Jha, namely Sunil Jha, as heir and