JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, J. - The facts are Smt. Manika instituted a law suit under section 61/80 U.P. Tenancy Act on 5.5.1962 in the court of Assistant Collector, First Class, Ballia. In her pleadings the land is claimed as her sir and relief for possession has been prayed for. Defendant Ram Singhasan disputed her claim. On 19-6-1973 the suit was dismissed; defendant Ram Singhasan declared Shikmi tenant. Smt. Manika appealed. Additional Commissioner by his judgment and decree dated 27-7-1974 has up-turned the decision and suit is decreed. Defendant Ram Singhasan has carried the second appeal in this court. Some respondents died. 2. Heard the counsel for and against on time barred substitution application. 3. While the second appeal lay, defendant Ram Singhasan died. On his demise his sons and legal representatives Parmatma Singh and Kuber Nath Singh have been substituted. Four deaths also did take place on respondent's side. Parmatma Singh, defendant-appellant, moves an application on 10-11-1986 for substitution of their heirs. Respondent's who are dead are named below : Sl. Names Respondents no. Dates of death 1 Sudarshan 3 25.2.1978 2 Indra Deo 4 08/10/84 3 Sugriv Singh 6 04/08/78 4 Samarthi Singh 7 20.9.1983 4. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit he pleads the negligence that undergirds the delay in making the application is : he was ignorant of this procedural requirement. Is this explanation adequate? On the death taking place, the abatement of second appeal came about on expiry of 90 days. In the absence of an application to set aside the abatement within next 60 days, the limitation has run out. Surely, 150 days have gone by in each case. There has to be cogent and persuasive reasons to support the setting aside of abatement and substitution of heirs, because a valuable right has accrued to respondents by virtue of appeal's abatement. The ignorance of procedure is the chief reasons pleaded in the application. I do not think this is enough. Even in Roman times, ignorance of law has never been a persuasive excuse. In 1967 A.W.R. 251 Hon'ble D.S. Mathur J. observed: 5. "Ignorance of law is no excuse. If the appellant did not know law it was necessary for him to communicate all the facts to his counsel so that he may take all legal steps." Benefit of section 5 limitation Act is not a ground for ignorance of law. 6. In 1967 A.W.R. 251 Hon'ble D.S. Mathur J. observed: 5. "Ignorance of law is no excuse. If the appellant did not know law it was necessary for him to communicate all the facts to his counsel so that he may take all legal steps." Benefit of section 5 limitation Act is not a ground for ignorance of law. 6. In AIR 1929 Nagpur 74 also ignorance of law was urged as an excuse. It was stated that they were not aware that an application for substitution of legal representatives of deceased had to be made within three months of his death and request was for condonation of delay. It was held that "ignorance of law cannot be sufficient excuse for not filing the application in time and, therefore, the abatement cannot be set aside. In the case here, the death of two respondents had taken place in the year 1978. The application for substitution has been moved on 10-11-1986. The delay is of eight years. In the case of deceased Smarathi Singh, death occurred in 1983 and Indra Deo's in 1984. In their case the delay has been of near about 3 or 4 years. This is great delay. I go by 1987 R.D. 275 H.C. and reject the reason : ignorance of law, as persuasive and adequate. Time is of great essence in such crucial matters and reflects the endeavour of a social culture through Order 22 Rules 1 to 6 and 9 of C.P.C. to resolve disputes on ground other than merely merit. The prompt resolution of disputes in a settled time frame is the general social and legal concern that takes precedence over particular interest of a litigant. We seek to achieve what is particular in the general. One has to make ignorant learn; not give concession to enable him to regard it as a bless : "Is ignorance the first requisite of the litigant; ignorance which simplifies and clarifies, which selects and omits" (Lytton Strachy, Preface to Eminent Victorians). 1991 R.D. 69 is clear : The technical rules of Evidence Act, Civil procedure Code, Limitation Act are measure of the manners that characterise the outlook of a sophisticated society. These artificial Acts dovetail a chaos of controversy into a structure, clarity and a purpose. They make compelling demands on those who give themselves to such technical conception. 1991 R.D. 69 is clear : The technical rules of Evidence Act, Civil procedure Code, Limitation Act are measure of the manners that characterise the outlook of a sophisticated society. These artificial Acts dovetail a chaos of controversy into a structure, clarity and a purpose. They make compelling demands on those who give themselves to such technical conception. To make the acts technical is to make them artistic is to make them more and more perfect." All the artificial is conceived in the ingenious brain of man and is wrought with mental skill born out of inventive genius (Psyshic Factor's of civilisation : Lester ward P 287-288). So one cannot do away with technical rules and give scope to confusion and chaos in the name of helping poor and ignorant. It is not by accommodation with illiteracy but fight with it, not indulgence but punishing ignorant manners that leads to their eradication. Will more illiteracy and various ignorance, as it feared by the turn of century, justify condonation of say, reason 12 or more years? This indulgence reflects instincts and passions that romantecise an essentially premitive society. The Advocate's contention is broad in its sweep, is so radical in his conclusion, and general in its formulation as to be unhistaric in the breath of all past precedents. From the overwhelming need to explain the happening of each day from the date of delay and default, the explanation more cogent and credible the better, rulings celebrated in a long line of decisions, not carefully taken care for, spread over a long period there is this argument to allow outright concession of years in recognition of ignorance and poor manners. This will not do. Surely, the presumption is not apt that every suiter knows the legal incidents caused by the death of a respondent in an appeal going apace; but do they know that plaint has to show a cause of action or to have verification or a restoration application is in order on dismissal of a suit? Social cultures where outlook is predominantly premitive, say, as in Afghanistan or Yemen, insight into forms or rules of procedure in litigation, as against the substance of things, have no significance. This is a burden they do not lay on the moods, attitudes, and reactions of a tribal people. We have carried this burden, cheerfully or not, for over 200 years. This is a burden they do not lay on the moods, attitudes, and reactions of a tribal people. We have carried this burden, cheerfully or not, for over 200 years. It is now a part of procedural heritage for which no need is now to disburden the appellants. Lay the burden make the demand the response responsible significant step is taken in prompt resolution of dispute according to rules of the Act. The acts "are not here to adopt but to participate in; not to have, but to do and to be. And not even to be, but to keep becoming; a process, an orientation, a dynamic. (W. 6. Smith : Modernisation of a traditional Society, (P. 18). 7. Further, 8. I think men can be divided. Like to so many classification, in two groups those who respond positively to any stimulus or happening and those who respond negatively to any stimulus. The appellant, after an appeal is lodged within time, the death of a respondent taking place, is found quiescent and recessive, he subsides in himself and shrinks away from effort to inform his Advocate or court, fails and falters to show sufficient cause of Order XXII Rule 9(2) C.P.C. He responds negatively. To give such an appellant an advantage is to reward negligence. 9. In this view the substitution application by Parmatma Singh on 10-11-1986 is rejected. The second appeal is abated.