Judgment :- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the appellant in A. S. No. 350 of 1975, on the file of the District Judge, Trivandrum. The appellant in that case died on 22-8-1976. The fact of death was not reported to Court within 90 days. Neither the legal representatives got themselves impleaded within the period, it was only on 10-10-1977 that it was reported that the appellant was dead. The case was adjourned to 25 10-1977, and, thereafter, to 5-11-1977 and 23-11-1977. On 7-11-1977 petitions were filed for impleading the present appellants as legal representatives and also for setting aside the abatement and for condoning the delay. The petitions were opposed. The Court upheld the objection and dismissed the petitions. The present appeal is filed against the above order. 2. The fact that the original appellant died on 22-8-1976 is not disputed According to the appellants, who are his wife and children, they had no knowledge about the appeal. As soon as they came to know of the appeal they filed the necessary application for getting themselves impleaded, for setting aside the abatement and for condoning the delay. It is their case that since there was neither negligence nor inadvertence on their part this is a fit case where the delay should be condoned under S.5 of the Limitation Act (for short the Act). The point for consideration is whether the ignorance about the existence of the appeal is sufficient reason for condoning the delay under S.5 of the Limitation Act. 3. It is argued on behalf of the appellants, that S.5 of the Act requires a liberal interpretation and whenever it is found that there was no deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the legal representatives delay should be condoned. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Shakuntala Devi v. Kuntal Kumari, AIR. 1969 SC. 575, and the decision in State of W. B. v. Howrah Municipality, AIR. 1972 SC. 749. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Shakuntala Devi v. Kuntal Kumari, AIR. 1969 SC. 575, and the decision in State of W. B. v. Howrah Municipality, AIR. 1972 SC. 749. Both the above decisions lay down the principle that S.5 of the Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides is attributable to the appellant In the instant case, though the appellants would contend that the pendency of the appeal was not known to them, the averments in the petitions do not make out that they made any attempt to find out whether there were proceedings in which the deceased was interested. Ordinarily ignorance about the existence of a right is not a ground for postponing the starting point of limitation for enforcement of the right. To hold otherwise will in most cases have the effect of casting the burden on the opposite party to prove that the claimant had knowledge. It is only in cases falling under S 17 of the Act viz., where the ignorance or want of knowledge is occasioned by fraud on the part of the person against whom the right is enforced that there is a postponement of running of the period of limitation. S.17 governs not only suits but also applications. When there is a specific provision in the Act itself dealing with extension of limitation in cases where the party is kept ignorant of the right, it may not be open to the Court to extend the period of limitation by invoking the general provision under S 5 of the Act By holding that S.5 is applicable to cases of the present nature the Court will only be enabling a person to take advantage of his own inaction whether deliberate or otherwise or due to negligence. That will affect the scope of S 17(1)(b) of the Act and may make it an unnecessary surplusage so far as applications are concerned, because once it is made out that the party concerned had no knowledge, whether it was due to fraud or not, the Court will be competent to condone the delay in filing an application by invoking the provisions of S.5 of the Act. 4. In Dhani Ram v. Mohd. Usman, AIR. 4. In Dhani Ram v. Mohd. Usman, AIR. 1974 Delhi 89, the question whether delay in bringing the legal representatives on record could be condoned in an appeal where the legal representatives pleaded ignorance of pendency of the appeal came up for decision. The Court observed: "The 'sufficient cause' contemplated by S.5 roust be different from the 'knowledge of the right or title on which suit or application is founded' within the meaning of S.17(1)(b). Otherwise a person who cannot comply with the requirements of S.17(1)(b) would be entitled to obtain the benefit of S.5 for serving the same purpose. It could not be the intention of the legislature to nullify the provisions of S.17(1)(b) by enacting S.5". There are no sufficient reasons for interfering with the order passed by the District Judge. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.