JUDGMENT R.S. Singh, J.- This writ petition was disposed of by my judgment dated 20th August 1979 but the same was recalled subsequently on the application of the respondents by order dated 27-2-1980. On 7-9-1979, an application on behalf of respondent no. 3 was moved to the effect that the petitioner had died in the year 1975 and respondent no. 4 had died in the year 1978. No application for bringing the heirs of the deceased persons on record was moved on behalf of the heirs of the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is liable to be abated. This application was supported with an Affidavit. A counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner in December 1979 with the assertion that the heir of the petitioner had sent a letter to his counsel intimating the death of aforesaid persons to move an application for substitution. But it appears that the letter did not reach to the office of the learned counsel. Thereafter, a substitution application was filed on 5-3-1980 on behalf of the heir of the petitioner to substitute him in place of the petitioner and also to substitute the heir of respondent no. 4. This substitution application was opposed on the ground that the petitioner had full knowledge of the death of the aforesaid persons but no application was moved within time. Therefore, the petition has abated and there is no sufficient ground for condonation of delay. 2. Before this date, the learned counsel for the petitioner was allowed time for filing a supplementary affidavit to explain every day delay. This time again, explanation has been given that one Abdul Haneef came to the office of the learned counsel and deposited money for substitution application etc. But by mistake of the Clerk, the substitution application could not be filed at that time. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and examining the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties, I find that no explanation was given in the previous affidavits and even in the last affidavit for which time was granted for explaining the delay in moving substitution application. The substitution application has been moved only on 5-3-1980 whereas the applicant came to know in Dec. 1979 that the substitution application has not been moved as yet. The substitution application has been moved only on 5-3-1980 whereas the applicant came to know in Dec. 1979 that the substitution application has not been moved as yet. In spite of the fact that the applicant had intimated his counsel through letter and deposited the required money, no action was taken to move substitution application in time. It is settled law that once the period of limitation has expired, every day delay has to be explained. No explanation or cause of delay has been given for the period from Dec. 1979 to 5-3-1980 in spite of the fact that supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the applicant when on his request time was granted for the same. 4. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that no explanation of delay even from Dec. 1979 to 5-3-1980 has been given, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 5. In the result, the writ petition has abated. However, there is no order as to costs.