Short Note : 1. In this appeal the sole respondent Narsingh having died and an application under Order 22, rule 4 CPC (I.A. No. 433/78) has been filed by the appellants on 31-1-78. In this application it has been stated that Narsingh died about 3 or 4 years before. The appellants, therefore, moved another application I.A. No. 435/78 under Order 22, rule 9 CPC for setting aside the abatement. They also moved a third application I.A. No. 434 of 78 under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The notices of these applications were served on the proposed legal representatives of the deceased, but none remained present. I have, therefore, heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Held : In this application as well as in the affidavit filed by appellant Kalabai it is not stated when she got the knowledge that respondent Narsingh had died. Appellant No. 2 Puna is living in the same village in which the respondent was living. The appellants have not filed any medical certificate to prove that appellant No. 2 Puna is confined to bed. It is difficult to believe that the appellants, who are permanent residents of the same village in which Narsingh resided, could not get the knowledge of the death of Nalsingh for four years, particularly when a litigation was going on with him. It is, therefore, not proved that the appellants were prevented by any sufficient cause from continuing the suit which has abated on account of the death of the sole respondent. There is also no ground to hold that the appellants had any sufficient cause for not making an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent Narsingh within the prescribed time. Under these circumstances, neither the application of the appellants I.A. No. 435 of 1978 for setting aside the abatement nor the application I.A. No. 434 of 78 under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay can be allowed. I, therefore, reject these applications. Appeal dismissed as abated.