ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The application for condonation of delay in filing substitution application in respect of the deceased respondent No.1 in the Second Appeal before the High Court has been rejected by the impugned order dated 13/04.01.2013.

4. A perusal of the order reveals that the respondent No.1 in the Second Appeal had died but the substitution application to bring his heirs and legal representatives was filed with the delay of about seven months along with an application to condone the delay in filing the substitution application as well as to set aside the abatement, if any.

5. We find no plausible reason on the part of the High Court in rejecting the delay condonation application and consequently, substitution application merely for the reason that court presumed that since the parties were resident of same locality, they were aware of the death.

6. No such presumption in law exists. Therefore, the High Court fell in error in rejecting the delay condonation application. In fact, the appellant was not actually aware of the date of the death of the said respondent. This aspect was not considered independently of the above presumptio