JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J.- This is a petition directed against the order dated 18th September, 1979, passed by the 4th Additional District, Judge, Jhansi, allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and, thereafter, allowing the substitution application. 2. Suit No. 576 of 1974 was filed by Har Govind against Ram Narain, Kailash Narain and the petitioner Mahesh Chandra. During the pendency of the suit, an application was made for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from ejecting Har Govind from the property in dispute. This interim injunction was granted. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous appeal against the order granting injunction. During the pendency of that appeal. Ram Narain died on 15 August, 1975. The appeal was, ultimately, dismissed by the appellate court. In the suit, however, the plaintiff Har Govind moved an application for substitution on 20th May, 1976, and also an application for setting aside the abatement and also for condonation of delay. 3. The trial court impleidly accepted the case set up by the plaintiff that he got the knowledge of the death of Ram Narain only on 18th March, 1976, but the trial court did not condone the delay by order dated 3rd October, 1978 and rejected the application for substitution. Against the order dated 3rd October, 1978, a revision was filed in the court of the 3rd Additional District Judge, Jhansi. The revision was allowed by the 4th Additional District Judge on 18th September, 1979. Against the judgment dated 18th September, 1979, the petitioner has filed the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the plaintiff has not explained the every day's delay after 18th March, 1976, and as such, the application for condonation of delay could not have been allowed. He has further submitted that the application for substitution was, in fact, ready on 10th May. 1976, but was filed on 20th May, 1976, and this period has also not been explained. The third submission of the learned counsel is that, in fact, the plaintiff had knowledge of the death of the Ram Narain, much prior to 18th March, 1976, and the finding, to the contrary, recorded by the courts below is erroneous in law. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The trial court assumed that the plaintiff had the knowledge of the death of Ram Narain on 18th March, 1976. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The trial court assumed that the plaintiff had the knowledge of the death of Ram Narain on 18th March, 1976. The revisional court, after examining the various orders passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner against an order granting an ad interim injunction came to the conclusion that, for the first time, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that Ram Narain died on 18th March, 1976. This clearly is a finding fact and I do not find any manifest error of law in the said finding. The first submission, therefore, made by the learned counsel is not well founded. 6. So far as the second submission is concerned, in the counter affidavit, which was filed by the petitioner challenging the application for condonation of delay, this specific plea was not taken otherwise the plaintiff would have explained as to why he could not file the application on 17th March, 1976. The case has to be examined liberally. Such a highly technical view could not be taken. The petitioner had filed the application and it, therefore, cannot be said that the court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in condoning the delay merely because the application was drafted on 10th March, 1976, and filed on 20th March, 1976. 7. So far as the third submission is concerned, as I have already held above, there is already a finding of fact recorded by the court below that the plaintiff had knowledge of the death of Ram Narain only on 18th March, 1976. This is a finding of fact which cannot be challenged. In view of the above, I am of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not well founded. 8. In any case, in my opinion, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. An application for substitution has been. The date knowledge, as found by the courts below, is 18th March 1976. The application was moved on 20th May, 1976, i.e. only after two months of the knowledge of the date of death. An application for substitution has been. The date knowledge, as found by the courts below, is 18th March 1976. The application was moved on 20th May, 1976, i.e. only after two months of the knowledge of the date of death. The explanation, which has been given is that the plaintiff was trying to find out the names of the heirs of the deceased the ultimate order only is that the substitution application has been allowed" the suit has not been decided on merits. In my opinion, substantial justice has been done and in the circumstances, since no substantial injustice has been caused to the petitioner, no case has been made out for interference. 9. In the result the petition has no force. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.