JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, M. - This revision is directed against the order of Sri S.K. Ahmed, Addl. Commissioner, Jhansi Division dated September 5, 1972 passed in appeal No. 54 of 1970, Damru v. Bhaiya Lal allowing abatement to be set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The only point to be considered is whether the learned Addl. Commissioner acted illegally in exercise of his jurisdiction in setting aside the abatement. It would appear that Damru defendant-appellant died on August 21, 1971 during the pendency of the appeal and on December 17. 1971 an application was moved by Hari Singh minor, through the guardianship of his mother Smt. Nai Bahu widow of Damru for substitution as his son and heir and also for being given the benefit of Section 5, Limitation Act. The application was accompanied by an affidavit to the effect that Hari Singh being a minor and his mother being an illiterate village woman had no knowledge that Damru had filed an appeal in the Addl. Commissioner's court and that they only came to know of it in the village two days back and immediately rushed to the court with the application. The learned Addl. Commissioner allowed the abatement to be set aside on payment of Rs. 50/- to be paid to the O.P. 4. It is correct that under Section 3, Limitation Act, an appeal preferred or an application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, but Section 5 authorises a court to extend the prescribed period if one satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. The facts of the present case show that there was sufficient case for the substitution application not being made within the prescribed period of 90 days. The fact that the applicant who is the heir of the defendant-appellant, is a minor knowledge of the appeal within the prescribed period. The Addl. Commissioner has, therefore, not been guilty of any error in keeping in view the fact that the applicant was minor. It cannot be said that there was no sufficient cause for giving benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or that the learned Addl. Commissioner has in any way acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction. 5. Commissioner has, therefore, not been guilty of any error in keeping in view the fact that the applicant was minor. It cannot be said that there was no sufficient cause for giving benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or that the learned Addl. Commissioner has in any way acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction. 5. I, therefore, see no force in this revision and hereby dismiss it.