JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - Respondent No. 1 having died on 1-6-82 an application to bring his legal representatives on record has been moved along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. It is alleged that the deceased respondent was resident of village Dharampur and since the appellants reside in village Manpur which is six miles away on the other side of river Manorama the appellants could not know about his death. The application is opposed and it is alleged that the appellants belong to village Dharampur and they reside there and the allegations to the contrary in this regard were not correct. 2. Earlier also time to file rejoinder affidavit was granted but no rejoinder affidavit was filed. Thereafter by order dated 4th Sept., 84 applications under Section 5 and for substitution were dismissed. Shri G. P. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellants applied for recalling the said order and, therefore, the order was recalled. Time was granted to the appellants to file rejoinder affidavit and list the appeal on 10th Oct., 1984. No rejoinder affidavit till today has been filed and the counsel was also not present when the appeal was called on for orders. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondents, I find that an earlier application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased appellant was moved on 19th Aug., 1980 and in that application the appellants have been shown to be the residents of village Dharampur. In the Vakalatnama accompanying the said application also the residence of the appellants is shown in village Dharampur. The own evidence of the appellants, there I ore, shows, conclusively that they are not residents of village Manpur but in fact reside in village Dharampur. In view of unbelievable stand taken by the appellant it is not possible for me to hold that they had no knowledge of the death of respondent No. 1 who resided in the same village. The grounds for condoning the delay, therefore, are unconvincing and have to be rejected. 4. The application for condoning the delay, in applying for substitution of the legal heirs of respondent No. 1 is, therefore, dismissed. The substitution application is also dismissed.