Judgment :- 1. This is an application to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the 4th respondent. In the affidavit in support of the application, the petitioners have stated that they were not aware of the death of the 4th respondent till 19-12-1984. The 4th respondent died on 12-6-1982. 2. The petitioners submit that they came to know about the death of the 4th respondent only from the memo filed in this court by the respondents' counsel on 3-12-1984. Petitioners say that immediately after obtaining the information of the death of the 4th respondent from the memo filed by the respondents' counsel, the appellants have taken all the necessary and speedy steps to ascertain the correct address of the legal representatives to be impleaded and proper applications for setting aside the abatement for impleading and for condoning the delay caused in filing the application for setting aside the abatement were filed. It is further stated that the appellants had no means to know about the death of the 4th respondent, since the 4th respondent was residing six kilometers away from the place where the appellants are residing. The petitioners wanted to highlight the fact that though the 4th respondent died in June 1982, the learned counsel who appeared in this court for the 4th respondent filed a memo in this court only on 3-12-1984 stating that the 4th respondent died on 12-6-1982. The appellants submit that considering the above facts and events, this court should wink at the delay in filing the application to set aside the abatement. 3. The learned counsel for the additional respondents submitted that it was for the appellants to show when they came to know about the death of the 4th respondent and that they should assign good reasons why they did not come to know about it early and satisfy the court that they had no means of knowledge and only then the appellants can get the benefit of the provision of S.5 of the Limitation Act. 4. As said earlier, the appellants submit that they came to know about the death of the deceased 4th respondent when the respondents' counsel informed this court after the death by filing a memo in compliance to R.10-A of 0.22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. As said earlier, the appellants submit that they came to know about the death of the deceased 4th respondent when the respondents' counsel informed this court after the death by filing a memo in compliance to R.10-A of 0.22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. R.10-A reads thus: "10-A Duty of pleader to communicate to Court death of a party. Whenever a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to know of the death of that party, he shall inform the court about it, and the court shall thereupon give notice of such death to the other party, and, for this purpose, the contract between the pleader and the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist." 5. This rule has been added in 0.22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the Amending Act of 1976. It is clear that it provides that when a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to know of the death of the party, he shall inform the court about it and the court shall thereafter give such notice to the other party and for this purpose, the contract between the pleader and the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist. R.11 provides that in the application of O.22 to appeals, so far as may be, the word "plaintiff" shall be held to include an appellant and the word "defendant" a respondent and the word "suit" an appeal. I feel that these provisions were added taking a pragmatic view of the matter to extenuate and disburden the difficulty arising from the fact that the party to an appeal may seldom learn about the death of the other party during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal normally lies inert and languid for years. In the circumstances, it is too much to expect the parties to be enquiring about the survival of their opposite parties. Normally, when the appeal is notified for hearing, it is activated, then alone the first light surprisingly gleams telling the one or the other party has not only died but the time for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased party has run out and the appeal has abated. In this context, I feel a realistic and practical approach has been made by the legislature to see that administration of justice is not impeded by such technical and inconsequential procedural subsidence. In this context, I feel a realistic and practical approach has been made by the legislature to see that administration of justice is not impeded by such technical and inconsequential procedural subsidence. The provision contained in S.10-A is a novel provision whereby by a deeming fiction, the contract between the dead client and the lawyer is extended and continued for the purpose of casting a duty upon the learned Advocate appearing for the party who comes to know about the death of the party to inform the court about the death of the party, whom he represented. In my judgment, it is really a sensible and practical minded provision which has been consciously made to meet situations like the one now before me. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the death of the 4th respondent was reported in newspapers and so this court should presume that the appellants had an opportunity to know about the death of the respondent. The Supreme Court has said in Bapurao v. Jamunabai (A.I.R.1983 S. C. 186) that it is difficult to appreciate that litigants are presumed to read newspapers so as to be aware of the death of the prominent citizens from the obituary columns of leading national newspapers. I have to remember that "laws of procedure are intended for advancing justice and not for impeding the same. The Code of Civil Procedure is not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up". Vide Bagwan Swaroop v. Mool Chand (A.I R.1984 S. C. 355). I feel that in the circumstances, I should allow this application, The delay in making the application for setting aside the abatement is condoned and the application is allowed. Allowed.