Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA First Appeal No.433 of 1996 Parmila Devi & Ors Versus Smt.Kanti Devi & Ors ---------------------------------- 32. 13.01.2012 Heard the learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.10428 of 2010. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since there was strand relationship between the appellant and the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.2 was residing in Jharkhand somewhere at Dhanbad. The appellants had no knowledge about the death of respondent no.2. In injunction matter, notices were issued and when service report came that she has died, the appellants came to know about her death. According to the learned counsel, she had not contesting the suit in the court below although, filed the written statement. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, there was delay in filing the substitution application. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent also. In view of submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, I am satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from not filing the application within time and, therefore, the limitation in substitution matter is condoned, abatement is set aside 2 and the substitution application is allowed. The legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.2 as mentioned in detail in the substitution application are substituted in place of the respondent no.2 after deleting her name since the notice has already been validly served. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)