M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) I have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate in some detail. ( 2 ) HE commenced his submissions by pointing out that the petitioner was the plaintiff before the Trial Court and that her suit has virtually been dismissed on the ground that the L. Rs. of the deceased defendant had not been brought on record within the prescribed time. The learned Advocate stated that the petitioner is an illiterate agriculturist and that she was wholly unaware of the death of the defendant, but more importantly, of any legal niceties and that to compound matters, she had also fallen ill for a few months. He submits that these aspects of the matter have been totally ignored by the learned trial Judge who has held that the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed because, the Court has recorded the finding that the petitioner-plaintiff was aware of the death of the defendant in January of that year despite which, the application for condonation of delay and bringing on record the L. Rs. has been filed only in September, admittedly well outside the period of limitation. In this background, the learned advocate submitted that the Court must be pleased to exercise its discretion having regard to the status of the petitioner and that the court should interfere with the order of the Trial Court. The additional submission was that if the application for setting aside the abatement had not been made, that since the application for condonation of delay was on record, that the Court should treat the case as though the application for abatement was in fact deemed to have been made and alternatively, the learned Advocate submitted that the omission was a technical one and that therefore, it is within the discretionary powers of this Court to permit the filing of an application for setting aside the abatement even at this point of time. ( 3 ) IN support of his contentions, the petitioner's learned Advocate relied on two decisions. The first case is Sri Ram prasad v State Bank of Bikaner and Others. In that case, a peculiar position had arisen because, some of the L. Rs. were already on record and even though the officer treated the suit as having abated as against the remaining L. Rs. and an application was made for substituting those L. Rs. The first case is Sri Ram prasad v State Bank of Bikaner and Others. In that case, a peculiar position had arisen because, some of the L. Rs. were already on record and even though the officer treated the suit as having abated as against the remaining L. Rs. and an application was made for substituting those L. Rs. who had been left out, the court took the view that an application for abatement was unnecessary as the suit cannot be said to have abated in so far as some of the L. Rs. were already before the Court. Since the proceeding was obviously alive, the Court held that an application for setting aside the abatement was unnecessary. Relying on this decision, petitioner's learned advocate submits that this Court should treat the application for condonation of delay and bringing the L. Rs. on record as one in which there is an implicit prayer for setting aside the abatement and on this ground, interfere with the orders passed by the Trial Court. ( 4 ) THE fallacy in this argument arises from the fact that in thedecision cited, some of the L. Rs. were on record and therefore, the proceeding was alive in so far as it had not abated. It may be that the office had treated it as having abated as against some of the L. Rs. , but the important fact was that the proceeding was still very much before the Court and in this background, the allahabad High Court took the view that no application for setting aside the abatement was really necessary. The facts in the present case are entirely different and the decision would have no application. ( 5 ) THE other decision relied on is reported in Suraj Kund Temple and Another v Rama Kant and Others. In this case, the application for bringing the L. Rs. on record was filed within the period of limitation, but the error committed by the learned advocate was that the supporting affidavit was not filed. ( 5 ) THE other decision relied on is reported in Suraj Kund Temple and Another v Rama Kant and Others. In this case, the application for bringing the L. Rs. on record was filed within the period of limitation, but the error committed by the learned advocate was that the supporting affidavit was not filed. The trial Court had dismissed the application on the ground that it was not sustainable, but the High Court interfered and had occasion to point out that such a technical and pedantic approach by the Trial Court was wrong in so far as the application having been filed within the period of limitation was very much on file and that it was within the powers of the Trial court to have permitted the party to file the supporting affidavit instead of dismissing the application itself. The petitioner's learned Advocate advanced a strong plea that if in exercise of the inherent powers, the Court on this occasion, could permit the defect in the application to be cured, that on an analogy, the inherent powers could be used in the present proceeding for purposes of permitting the petitioner to file a formal application for setting aside the abatement. ( 6 ) I do concede that the Courts must make a lot of allowances for situations where the litigants come from the weaker sections of society because, it is in those areas that there are several problems that aggravate the situation such as illiteracy, poverty, ignorance, poor health etc. The Courts do make numerous allowances, but all these are permissible when a discretion is vested in the Court. The petitioner's learned Advocate is not right when he points out that as far as matters of limitation are concerned, that a discretion vests in the Court. Even if the Court were to take the most sympathetic view of the petitioner's condition and more importantly, as pointed out by the learned advocate, the harsh consequences to the petitioner of her suit itself failing on a technical ground, that a Court needs to consider whether it is at all possible to show any indulgence in the light of the provisions. I would have had no hesitation in assisting the poor petitioner even assuming that she is in the wrong box or that she has not been very truthful with the Trial court, because the overriding interests of justice are predominant in such cases, but the bar in the way of this Court arises from the fact that the instances in question have taken place several years back. The law of limitation prescribes that the application are required to be made within a prescribed period of time and it is just not permissible, possible or even correct for this Court to permit the filing of any application for setting aside the abatement after such a long lapse of time. The law of limitation has to be strictly construed and it binds parties and Courts equally. Where the law prescribes a time period, the cause of action gets extinguished on the expiry of that time period. It is necessary to note that the inherent powers, even those flowing from Section 151, C. P. C. do vest some degree of discretion in a Court, but that this discretion cannot be used to overcome a statutory bar. The law is absolutely clear with regard to this aspect of the matter and it is in this background that this court is virtually rendered helpless. The most tragic but equally grave aspect is that it is the petitioner's lawyer in the Trial court (sic) is responsible. ( 7 ) THE revision accordingly fails and stands disposed of. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .