JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of Sri S. Mubarak Hasan, Member, Board of Revenue dated 18.11.77 whereby the petitioners second appeal has been dismissed as abated under Order 22, Rule C.P.C. 2. The undisputed fact is that the petitioners father had died in the year 1972 and the substitution was moved in the year 1977 with the averment that the petitioner no. 1 came to know about the pendency of the second appeal no 19.7.1977 and thereafter he applied for substituted of his name in place of his father and also prayed for setting aside the abatement if any. 3. The claim of the petitioner was contested by the contesting opposite Party on the ground that the petitioner had knowledge of the pendency of the appeal. The counter affidavit filed before the Board of Revenue is Annexure 5' attached with the writ petition. The learned Member has recorded relevant finding in the following words :- ".....Sri Chandra Nath, who is aged about 35 years was the only son of his father. It is difficult to believe that he had no knowledge of the affairs of his father and came to know about the pendency of the appeal for the first time on 19.7.77. The appeal abated long ago. The substitution application is highly time barred and the delay of each day has not been satisfactorily explained." 4. I have gone through the contents of Annexure 5 attached with the writ petition Very vague allegations have been made about the knowledge of the pendency of the appeal to the petitioner and it appears that the same has been accepted by the learned Member without examining the effect of the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is only guess work to say that the petitioner had knowledge of the pendency of the appeal, especially when the petitioner no. 1 says on oath that he had no knowledge about the appeal before 19.7.77. To my mind the learned Member has not approached the problem from correct angle and he patently erred in dismissing the appeal as abated. 5. Now a days the trend of the highest court is that the delay in filling the substitution application should be liberally considered. To my mind the learned Member has not approached the problem from correct angle and he patently erred in dismissing the appeal as abated. 5. Now a days the trend of the highest court is that the delay in filling the substitution application should be liberally considered. If the allegations made on behalf of the petitioners are accepted, in my opinion, there exists sufficient-cause for condonation of delay and substitution of petitioner no. 1 as heir of his father. It has also been brought to my notice that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 both live in Nepal and their village was also at a distance of 5 miles from the land in dispute. In such a circumstance the petitioner deserves condonation of delay at the instance of second appellate court. The ends of justice demand that the impugned judgment should be quashed and the petitioners should be substituted in place of deceased appellant before the second appellate court and the appeal should be heard on merits. 6. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the second appellate court dated 18.11.77 is hereby quashed and the second appellate Court is directed to substitute the petitioner as appellants and proceed with the appeal on merits. There would be no order as to costs.