Short Note : 1. The first appeal preferred by the appellants before the lower appellate Court was dismissed as having abated on the ground of failure of the appellants to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent Manrakhan within the prescribed period of limitation. The application moved after the expiry of the period or limitation was rejected because the lower appellate Court did not find sufficient ground to condone the delay under section 5 of the limitation Act. Held: The order either allowing or refusing condonation of delay is one made in exercise of the discretion of the Court. The lower appellate Court has given cogent reasons for holding that despite having knowledge of the fact that respondent Manrakhan died on 17-8-75, the application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased was moved after about one year, i.e., in July 1976. The evidence led was not sufficient to explain the delay in question. It was not disputed that the appellant Ishwariprasad resided in the lame town in the neighbourhood of the house of the deceased respondent. In his affidavit, under these circumstances, he dared not to deny the fact that he was aware of the death. What was stated was that he was not aware that there is any limitation for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. This was rightly held to be no excuse for condoning the delay. Appeal dismissed.