A. N. DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) THE original petitioner has moved this application for amendment in the memo of Special Civil Application No. 1663 of 1986. Thereby he wants to add certain in Special Civil Application No. 1663 of 1986 decided on 22/08/1995 grounds for challenging the impugned order and also for challenging one order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 2 on 5/07/1993 though communicated on 12/07/1993. ( 2 ) IT is true that there has been delay in making this application for amendment. Delay howsoever inordinate will not defeat an application for amendment unless it is shown by the other side that some right has accrued or has come to be vested in its favour by passage of time. ( 3 ) IT has then been urged that the petitioner was very much a party to the proceeding culminating into the order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 3 on 5/07/1993 which is sought to be challenged by means of this application for amendment. It may be noted that the order in question came to be passed during the pendency of this petition. It is possible that the litigant might have thought that, since the petition is already pending in this Court, all incidental orders will be taken care of when it is taken up for final hearing. In fact, the order in question has been passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 3 and yet the learned Advocate for the petitioner came to know of it only when the matter was taken up for final hearing and the petition was sought to be rejected only on the strength of the said order. ( 4 ) IT has been urged that ignorance of law is no excuse and the petitioner as a party to the order in question ought not to have remained indolent when it was obviously passed against him. In this connection, a reference deserves to be made to the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sumiran vs. D. D. C. reported in AIR 1985 supreme Court at page 606. In that case, a party-respondent had died some six years ago to the knowledge of the petitioner himself and yet an application for bringing the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record was made after six years. In that case, a party-respondent had died some six years ago to the knowledge of the petitioner himself and yet an application for bringing the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record was made after six years. It appears that the petition was disposed of as having abated as heirs of the deceased respondent were not brought on record. An application for setting aside such amendment was moved on behalf of the original petitioner and in the context it has been held:"but merely because no application was made by the appellants for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 5 on record we do not think that in the circumstances of the present case that would be a valid ground for refusing to grant the application of the appellants for setting aside the abatement and bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 5 on record because the appellants are admittedly from the rural area and in a country like ours where there is so much poverty, ignorance and illiteracy, it woud not be fair to presume that everyone knows that on death of a respondent, the legal representatives have to be brought on record within a certain time. The ends of justice require that the application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 5 should have been granted. "the aforesaid binding ruling of the Supreme Court is applicable by analogy on the facts of this case. The petitioner is admittedly residing in a rural area in the district of banaskantha. The area of Banaskantha is by and large considered to be a backward area replete with poverty, ignorance and illiteracy. It is too much to expect of a litigant from that area to know that he has to challenge the order in question even if it is passed during the pendency of this petition. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinioin that his remaining indolent and ignorant about his action in the matter will not come to the rescue of the contesting respondents. ( 5 ) XXX xxx xxx. ( 6 ) XXX xxx xxx. ( 7 ) XXX xxx xxx. .