JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.: This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment passed by Shri R.L. Sharma, Addl. District Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts Camp at Solan, HP. By means of impugned judgment dated 27-12-1984 in Civil Appeal No. 18-S/13 of 1983, it has been held that since the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of Khushi Ram deceased one of the respondents in the appeal being not within limitation, it was dismissed. Since the appeal had abated consequently the same stood dismissed. 2. In order to properly appreciate the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties by the learned counsel, it is necessary to refer to a few facts. The suit was filed by Smt. Tara Devi, Salochna Devi and Shri Bhagwan Dass being daughters and son respectively of late Sh. Munna Lal against Khushi Ram and others for possession of land measuring 13 biswas comprised in KhasraNo.9 situated in Village Gadhon,Tehsil and District Solan along with house comprising three storeyed building having six big and six small rooms besides verandah. Trial court after hearing the parties and finally by means of judgment dated 28-4-1993 dismissed the said suit. 3. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court was questioned by the plaintiffs by means of Civil Appeal No. 18-S/l 3 of 1983. During the pungency of the appeal, respondent No. l Khushi Ram had died on 6-12-1983 as per Ex. A-1 produced in evidence before the First Appellate Court. When the c»se was taken up by the Appellate Court. When the case was taken up by the appellate court below, on 28-9-1984, following order was passed: "28-9-94 For the Appellant: Shri. Amar Singh Kashyap., For the Respondent: Shri. R.K. Garg for respt. No.3 and also vice counsel for respt. No.5. Respondent No. 1 Khushi Ram is stated to have died. An application for bringing on record his LRs was already filed on 19-7-84. Copy of the application has already been given to the counsel opposite. To come up for reply on 22-10-84 for which date notices to the proposed LRs of the deceased Khushi Ram be also issued on filing of P.F. end Registered A.D. covers . Sd/- Addl District Judge, Solan & Sirmeur Districts." 4. This application was contested and resisted by the defendants -respondents and on 26-10-1984 following issues were framed by the appellate court below: 1. Sd/- Addl District Judge, Solan & Sirmeur Districts." 4. This application was contested and resisted by the defendants -respondents and on 26-10-1984 following issues were framed by the appellate court below: 1. Whether the appeal has not abated as alleged? OPA. 2. Relief. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs gave a statement that he tenders in evidence Ex. A-l death certificate and closed his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants stated on the same day that no evidence is intended to be led on behalf of the respondents (defendants). 5. Appellate court below by means of impugned judgment has. Held that the application was. barred by time and appeal has abated and consequently while recording finding son Issue No.2 has dismissed the appeal as such. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has urged that his clients had informed their counsel who was handing the brief on their behalf in the appellate court below and .in case there was any discrepancy and/or deficiency in die application that was filed for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent-defendant No. 1 Khushi Ram, his client should not be made to suffer Besides this, it was also urged by Shri Bhupender Gupta that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure relating to bringing on record the legal representatives as well as setting aside the abatement have to be liberally construed, keeping in view the purpose that interest of justice, as well as law demands that substantial justice should be done to the parties rather than dismissing a just claim o~ technical pleas like that of limitation 7. On the other hand, Shri Harish Behal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that so far as legal proposition for liberal construction of the provisions in the matter of bringing on record the legal representatives as well as for setting aside the abatement are concerned, he hat no dispute. Bat at the same time, he urged that parties must bring some material and plead certain facts so as to enable the court to examine the matter in the light of material brought before it. So far as the -matter relating to grant of substantial justice is concerned, Sh. Harish Behal urged mat it has to be granted to both the parties that too even handed. It was further pointed but by the learned courts;! So far as the -matter relating to grant of substantial justice is concerned, Sh. Harish Behal urged mat it has to be granted to both the parties that too even handed. It was further pointed but by the learned courts;! for the respondents that when a reference is made to the Application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant Khushi Ram „ according to him the only substance in th; application is that it is brief, cryptic besides being microscopic. In this behalf i: was also submitted on behalf of the defendants that it is not a case rustic illiterate villager not knowing intricacies of law. 8. On the other hand application is signed by Bhagwan Dass appellant No.3 who appears to be prima facie an educated person. Again reference was made to the facts detailed in the application. For ready reference, the contents of the application are re-produced here-in-below: "1. That the above titled case/appeal is pending before this Honble court which is fixed for hearing on 22,8.84. 2. That in the above titled case the respondent No. l Sh. Khushi Ram is stated to be expired some time in December, 1983 which fact has come to the knowledge of the appellant-applicant on 17- 7-83 when he came to Solar from Delhi where he is employed through one Shri C.R. Chandel. husband of respondent No.3 in the case Smt. Bhagwati Devi leaving behind the following legal representatives : 1) Smt. Shanti Devi, Wife of Khushi Ram, R/o VilL Luharda, P.O. Koti, Teh. Kasauli Distt. Solan. 2) Sh. Ram Lai S/o Khishi Ram -do- 3) Sh. Ashok Kumar son of Khushi Ram -do- 4) Sh. Amar Nath son of Khushi Ram -do- 5) Sh. Om Parkash son of Khushi Ram -do- 6) Sh. Nishi son of Khushi Ram -do- 7) Sh. Devinder Singh son of Khushi Ram -do- 8) Smt. Sarswati Devi d/o Khushi Ram -do- 9) Smt. Santosh Kumari d/o Khushi Ram -do- 10) Smt. Guddi d/o Sh. Khushi Ram -do- 3. That the above named legal representatives of the deceased Khushi Ram respondent No. 1 are required to be brought on record. Devinder Singh son of Khushi Ram -do- 8) Smt. Sarswati Devi d/o Khushi Ram -do- 9) Smt. Santosh Kumari d/o Khushi Ram -do- 10) Smt. Guddi d/o Sh. Khushi Ram -do- 3. That the above named legal representatives of the deceased Khushi Ram respondent No. 1 are required to be brought on record. It is, therefore, prayed that the above named legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 1 Khushi Ram may kindly be brought on record and the name of the respondent No. l Khushi Ram deceased may be deleted from the array of respondents. Applicant Bhagwan Dass Appellant. . Sd/- (Bhagwan Dass) through Sd/- Date. July 18, 1984 counsel Verification I, Bhagwan Dass the above named applicant do hereby verify that the contents of my above applications from para 1 to 3 are true and correct within my knowledge. Verified at Solan on this 18th day of July, 1984. Applicant Sd/- (Bhagwan Dass) 9. Now according to the plaintiff. Khushi Ram had died in December, 1983 of which fact he came to know when he had come to Solan from Delhi where he is employed and husband of defendant No.3 Bhagwanti informed plaintiff Bhagwan Dass about the death of said respondent. It was urged on behalf of the defendants that after ha\:.ig come to know, of the death of Khushi Ram defendant No. 1 on 17-7 .983. It seems that this date of 17-7-1981- the application as filed on 1-7-1984. It seems that this date of 17-7-1983 mentioned in the application in para 2 is the result of typographical mistake. This position is clear from the fact that on one hand the plaintiffs have stated that defendant No . Had died sometime in December. 1983 so there was no occasion for the plaintiffs having come to know about it on 17-7-1983. We are of the confirmed view that this is a case of pure and simple typographical error/mistake and appears to have been left as such at the time of filing of the application. Had proper care been taken before fill the application then the mistake would not have crept in. In any event a litigant has to depend upon his learned counsel so far matter relating to pleadings is concerned. It is a matter of common knowledge that client only gives the facts and pleadings/petitions have to be couched in proper language by the learned counsel. In any event a litigant has to depend upon his learned counsel so far matter relating to pleadings is concerned. It is a matter of common knowledge that client only gives the facts and pleadings/petitions have to be couched in proper language by the learned counsel. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that after having come to know on 17-7-1984 about the death of defendant No. 1 Khushi Ram having died somewhere in December, 1983, application in question was filed by the plaintiff. Thus in these circumstances it is clear that the first appellate court had fallen into error while passing the impugned judgment and holding that the application is time barred. Similarly, in the face of the aforesaid discussion, the plea to the contrary in this behalf raised by the learned counsel for the defendants, is hereby rejected. 10. Another reason for not accepting the plea raised on behalf of the defendants is that rules of procedure are hand made for advancing the cause of justice as well as for doing substantial justice between the parties. In case the plea raised on behalf of the defendants is upheld then it will result in denying the hearing of appeal on merits to the plaintiffs. Besides this, no party stands to gain by filing a time barred application or by not taking timely action in a pending Us, Similarly. there is no presumption in law that whenever delay occurs it is wilful or intentional and above all the pedantic approach of calling. Upon to explain each days delay is not to be insisted upon. Needless to point out that the courts are respected for doing justice between die parties and for not non-suiting them by throwing out cases on technical pleas like limitation as in the present case. Last but not the least the Courts have also keep in mind that it would be in consonance with public policy to set the controversy at rest for all times to come rather than dismissing the case on technical pleas as has been done by the first appellate Court.. It is now well settled that when technical pleas are pitted against grant of substantial justice former would give way to the latter. 11. It is now well settled that when technical pleas are pitted against grant of substantial justice former would give way to the latter. 11. For the reasons set out here-in-above, it is evident that the first appellate Court was not justified in dismissing the application and holding that the appeal has abated. A perusal of the findings recorded further goes to show that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in any circumstances. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the first appellate Court below holding that the application for bringing on record the legal representative of deceased Khushi Ram defendant being time barred and consequently suit having abated are hereby set aside. As a consequence of this, the application filed by the plaintiffs for hearing on record legal representatives of deceased Khushi Ram is hereby allowed and the persons mentioned therein in its paragraph 2 are ordered to be imp leased as legal . representatives in place of defendant No. l Khushi Ram. The appellate court below is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and there after proceed to dispose of the same in accordance with law. Looking to the, fact that the original appeal was filed on 16-6- 1983, it is directed that the first & appellate, court will dispose of the same with utmost expedition and in nr "4se later than 31- 8-1997. Parties to appear before sic. Solan on 16/6 97; Records be sent forthwith.