Judgment A. N. Chaturvedi, J. 1. This is a petition by the appellant under Order 22, Rule 9 and Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 5 of the Limitation Act for setting aside the abatement and for substitution the legal representative of respondent No.9 as mentioned in para 1 (a) in place of deceased respondent No.9. 2. As it appears respondent No.9 Surendra Prasad died on 6-2-1986 as a result of which the appeal notice issued to him was returned back with the report that he has died. Since the legal representative of respondent no.9 was not substituted in his place in time order dated 15-12-1986 was passed regarding, abatement of the appeal as against the heirs of deceased respondent No.9. Subsequently, on 28-4-1987 the petition under consideration was filed on behalf of appellant with the above mentioned prayer. 3. In the petition it has been stated that the appellant knew about the death of respondent No.9 but he being a rustic villager could not understand the implication and was not knowing that any steps is required to be taken and as such he did not inform his counsel about the death. It has been further stated that when they received a letter of his counsel on 24-4-1987 in this regard he met him on 27-4-1987 and then the petition under consideration was filed. The delay in filing the petition has been attempted to be explained in the aforesaid manner. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 10 and 11 that a petition for setting aside abatement can be placed within 150 days from the date of death and the petition under consideration having not been filed within the said period is fit to be rejected. It was further contended that ignorance of law is no excuse and in view of this also the petition is fit to be rejected. 5. It was not disputed that the appellant is rustic villager. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that considering the rural background and ignorance of the appellant delay in filing the petition for bringing legal representative of the deceased respondent on record is fit to be condoned and the abatement of the appeal is fit to be set aside. 5. It was not disputed that the appellant is rustic villager. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that considering the rural background and ignorance of the appellant delay in filing the petition for bringing legal representative of the deceased respondent on record is fit to be condoned and the abatement of the appeal is fit to be set aside. In support of this contention reliance was placed on a decision of the supreme Court in Ram Sumiran and others V/s. D. D Singh and others, (1985) 1 SCC 431 . In the case before their Lordships there was delay of about six years in filing application for bringing legal representative of the deceased respondent which was continued and abatement order was set aside. 6. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant does not stand to benefit by delaying to the filing of substitution petition and refusal to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice defeated and as against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merit after hearing the parties. It was also contended that there is no presumption that the delay is deliberate or is on account of calpabie negligance or on account of mala fides and a litigant runs as serious risk in resorting to delay. It was lastly contended that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay. In support of the above contention reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in collector Land Acquisition Anant Nag and another V/s. Smt. Katiji and others, air 1987 SC 1353 . 7. In view of this refusing to condone delay can result any maritorious matter being thrown out and cause of justice defeated. Having examined the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the application made by the appellant should be allowed and the legal representative of the deceased-respondent No.9 should be brought on record after setting aside the abatement and condoning the delay in making the application. 8. Accordingly, the petition, under consideration, filed on behalf of the appellant is allowed. 8. Accordingly, the petition, under consideration, filed on behalf of the appellant is allowed. The delay in filing the petition is condoned and the abatement of the appeal as against the heirs of deceased respondent No.9 is hereby set aside. Let the name of respondent No.9 be expunged and the name of his heir as mentioned in Para 1 (a) of the petition be substituted in his place. The petition is disposed of accordingly.