JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, J. M. - A law suit under Section 229-B Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed by Suraj Deo in the Court of Judicial Officer (Revenue) Ballia. The suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 30-8-1973. Appeal filed by plaintiff Suraj Deos. This was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17-10-1974. So this second appeal by Suraj Deo has been filed here. 2. While this appeal lay here, some of the respondents have died. An application moved by counsel for appellant on 20-12-1986 requires that names of deceased respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (Ram Yes, Sahdeo and Sarju) be struck off from the array and their legal representatives be substituted. In the affidavit it is given out that all the three have died 5 years ago. The delay is explained on the ground that village has come under consolidation operation, his local counsel, has advised him that appeal will abate on its own and no pairavi is necessary. That he is an old illiterate villager, so the delay be excused. Also dead in respondent Suraj Tewari. He died, according to affidavit. Seven years ago. Is the explanation of each days delay after 150 days cogent? There are two appellants : Suraj Deo and Sukhai. Only affidavit of Suraj Deo has been filed. He may be 80 years old. Is Sukhai also old and ignorant ? The dates of death of all 4 respondents have not been mentioned in the application or in the affidavit, 1947 R.D. 282 requires that date of death of deceased be given in the application, AIR 1964 SC 264 states that it is the appellants burden to notify the date of death, also given reasons why he got knowledge of death so late. It is not enough to say that he has got belated Knowledge. Insetting aside abatement under Section 5 Limitation Act each days delay since the end of 150 days from death shall have to be explained. Want of diligence on the part of appellant to substitute, soon after the factum of death came to his notice is fatal : AIR 1978 Cal, 516. In this case there is no separate application for setting aside abatment that has taken place. Want of diligence on the part of appellant to substitute, soon after the factum of death came to his notice is fatal : AIR 1978 Cal, 516. In this case there is no separate application for setting aside abatment that has taken place. In such a case the application for bringing the legal representatives on record cannot be taken as an application for setting aside abatement, when the application does not disclose the date of death : AIR 1930 Cal 422 : AIR 1963 MP 183 , 1982 AWC 675 (HC) is clear that when no precise date of death of deceased is given and suit has abated by reason of expiry of limitation of 90 days, the substitution application will not be treated as an application for setting aside abatement also. 3. The appellant has given two reasons for delay. Thai he was advised by local counsel that appeal will abate due to consolidation. This is not a competent legal advice only a competent appeal abates by reason of consolidation. Ignorance of law is so excuse. The second appeal reason is that he is an illiterate, simple, ignorant villager. I cannot give benefit to him for his ignorance that simplifies things for him. He cannot be selective in lodging an appeal and omitting substitute. Respondents Ram Yes, Sahdeo and Sarju are dead, 5 years have gone by Respondent Sarju Tewari is dead, 7 years ago. No reasonable explanation of delay to given. 4. On a consideration of all that goes before, the substitution application of all 4 deceased ere rejected. The appeal has abated for non-substitution of heirs of deceased within reasonable time. The judgment of Additional Commissioner has become final. The appeal has abated and cannot be re-abated because of consolidation.