G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-1-1981 passed by the 7th addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in r. A No 340/80 on his file, dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffs on confirming the judgment and decree dated 28. 10. 78 passed by the Prl. Munsiff, bangalore, refusing to set aside the abatement and dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS instituted a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to passage as of right in the suit land and for permanent injunction against the defendant from obstructing the use of the path by them During the pendenry of the suit the defendant died on 3. 9. 77 and applications were instituted by the second plaintiff to set aside the abatement order and to bring the legal heirs of the defendant on record on 7-1-78. The trial Court held that the reason shown was not sufficient either to set aside the aba tement or to bring the legal heirs of the defendant on record and in that view the trial Court dismissed the applications and consequently tho suit On appeal to the first appellate Court the judgment and decree of the trial Court were confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have instituted the present second appeal before this Court. ( 3 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the appellants strenuously urged before me that the courts below were not justifed in dismissing the suit after dismissing the applications for setting aside the abatement and after rejecting the application for bringing the legal heirs of the defendant on record. He submitted that the courts below did not appreciate that the application for setting aside the abatement was instituted within time and sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay to bring the legal heirs of the defendant on record. ( 4 ) AS against that, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents argued supporting the judgment and decrees of the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court. ( 5 ) THE sole point, therefore, that arises for my consideration in this appeal is: Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the abatement could not be set aside and legal heirs could not be brought on record after condoning the delay. ( 5 ) THE sole point, therefore, that arises for my consideration in this appeal is: Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the abatement could not be set aside and legal heirs could not be brought on record after condoning the delay. ( 6 ) NINETY days is the prescribed period of limitation for bringing the legal heirs on record. Sixty days are provided for making application for setting aside the abatement and bringing the legal heirs on record after condoning the delay. The defendant died on 3-9-1977 and as such 90 days would be over on 1-12-77. 60 days thereof would be over on 1-2-1978. The application is given on 7-1-78. Therefore the application for setting aside abatement is also delayed. That is the first legal mistake they have committed. ( 7 ) THE next point for consideration would be whether the delay in giving the application for bringing the legal heirs of the defendant on record should be condoned and the application allowed after setting aside the abatement. As slated above, the legal heirs ought to have been brought on record on or before 2. 12. 77 ; the application was given on 7. 1. 78. In other words, there is delay of nearly one month and five days in giving the application. The reasons advanced for condoning the delay is that the first plaintiff was in charge of the case and she was instructing the lawyer. She went to her native place Malapur before the death of the defendant and that she suffered from ill health when she was in her native place and she returned late and therefore there was delay in making the application. The second plaintiff has sworn that since the first plaintiff was in charge of the case, he was not taking steps in the suit and when he came to know that steps were not taken for bringing the legal heirs on record, he approached the lawyer and got application made on 7-1-1978 and hence, they prayed that the delay should be condoned. ( 8 ) IT is settled principle of law that sufficient cause for condoning the delay should be liberally construed so as to advance the cause and not to hamper the remedy. ( 8 ) IT is settled principle of law that sufficient cause for condoning the delay should be liberally construed so as to advance the cause and not to hamper the remedy. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents invited my attention to a decision of the Supreme court of India in the case Union of india v. Ramacharan, (I ). Therein according to him it is ruled that sufficient cause should be construed strictly. But, on going through the decision I find that it is not so. This is what the Supreme Court has observed:"there is no question of construing the expression 'sufficient cause' liberally either because the party in default is the Government or because the question arises in connection with the impleading of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. The provisions of the Code are with a view to advance the cause of justice. Of course, the Court, in considering whether the appellant has established sufficient cause for his not continuing the suit in time or for not applying for the setting aside of the abatement within time, need not be over-strict in expecting such proof of the suggested cause as it would accept for holding certain fact established, both because the question does not relate to the merits of the dispute between the parties and because if the abatement is set aside, the merits of the dispute can be determined, while, if the abatement is not set aside, the appellant is deprived of his proving his claim on account of his culpable negligence or lack of vigilance". Thus, instead of saying anything to the contrary, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that rules in the Civil procedure Code are meant for advancing the remedy and the cause of justice and not to hamper it. Tha,t is the view taken by the Supreme Court in decisions more than one. In San- gram Singh v. Election Tribunal (2) the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the scheme of the c. P. C. Speaking on this aspect, his Lordship Justice Bose in Paras 16 and 17 of the Judgment has observed thus:"now a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is 'procedure' something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. It is 'procedure' something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to 'both' sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it. Next, there must be ever present to the mind the fact that our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs. . . . . "thus, it is well established that when an application is made for condonation of delay for bringing the legal heirs on record, the sufficient cause shown therein should be liberally construed so as to advance the remedy and not to penalise the party in order to trip him up. The court is not expected to be too technical in considering the cause shown. Bearing in mind the salutary principle as laid down by the supreme Court of India, it is so obvious that the Courts below have been unnecessarily harsh and hy pertechnical in rejecting the explanation offered by the applicant to condone the delay in bringing the legal heirs on record. Their approach has been illegal and contrary to what is laid down by the supreme Court of India. ( 10 ) THE first plaintiff according to both the plaintiffs was in charge of the case. She had been to her native place malapur. The evidence of P. W. 2 makes it clear that she suffered injury and suffered from ill-health. Hence, she had to prolong her stay in Malapur. The second plaintiff thinking that the first plaintiff would look into the matter did not approach the lawyer to take steps. Hence, there was a small delay of a month and five days in giving the application for bringing the legal representatives after getting the abatement set aside. The first plainiff has deposed that she is an old lady. Her evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P W. 2. Hence, there was a small delay of a month and five days in giving the application for bringing the legal representatives after getting the abatement set aside. The first plainiff has deposed that she is an old lady. Her evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P W. 2. The second plaintiff has also deposed; he has sworn to an affidavit in addition and the burden of the song is that since the first plaintiff had been to her native village, she could not immediately take steps. The fact that she was in her native village is amply proved. The second plaitiff has further stated that she returned after three months of the death of the defendant which falls in the month of December. That is what she has also stated. The second plaintiff has further averred that he carne to know through the lawyer that steps were 1o be taken to bring the legal heirs on record and that no steps were taken since the first plaintiff was away in her native place. Hence, he hurried to give the application for condoning the delay and to bring the legal heirs on record. The explanation so offered is qurte natural cogent and convincing. The trial court had no justification in observing that it is not reliable and the first appellate court in a highly mechanical and hyper-technical manner has simply dismissed the appeal. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the view taken by the courts below. As stated above, it is not, in accord with the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India. ( 11 ) I hold that the cause shown is quite sufficient for condoning the delay and I condone the same, The application for setting aside the abatement was given in time with good reasons. ( 12 ) IN the result, I allow the appeal and set aside the judgments and. Decrees of the Courts below as also orders passed by them on the I. As. I set aside the order of abatement and allow the application for bringing the legal heirs of the defendant on record and I direct that legal heirs of the defendant shall be brought on record by the trial Court, namely, City Civil court as mentioned in I. A. and then. The court shall proceed with the hearing of the suit in accordance with law. The court shall proceed with the hearing of the suit in accordance with law. ( 13 ) SEND back the records to the city Civil Court forthwith. No costs. Parties shall be issued notice of hearing by the City Civil Court. --- *** --- .