JUDGMENT (M.R. Verma, J.) (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9-6-1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur whereby the applications, one under Order 22, Rule 3 and under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. and the other under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the former application, have been allowed and the legal representatives of the deceased appellant, have been ordered to be brought on record. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 3. It has been contended for the petitioner that the aforesaid applications which were opposed have been allowed without affording any opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. On the other hand, it was contended for the respondents that keeping in view the nature of the applications, the appellate Court was justified in deciding the applications on the basis of the contents of the applications and the replies thereto and it was not necessary to record evidence. 4. A perusal of the record reveals that the applications moved by the respondents were opposed on the legal objections of being barred by limitation, that the appeal stands abated and the maintainability. On merits, the facts disclosing the alleged sufficient cause for condonation of delay and that the applicants were the only legal representatives were also disputed. Thus, the applications and the replies thereto raise important questions of law and facts which could be decided only on the basis of some evidence on the record. 5. It is not disputed that the learned District Judge neither framed issues which arise out of the controversy in the applications and the replies thereto nor called upon the parties to prove their respective averments. 6. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides for condonation of delay in filling application or appeal casts a duty on the applicant to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the prescribed period of limitation. The existence of such sufficient cause is a question of fact and can be proved only by evidence. The non-applicant has a right to disprove the facts sought to be proved to show existence of such "sufficient cause". 7. The existence of such sufficient cause is a question of fact and can be proved only by evidence. The non-applicant has a right to disprove the facts sought to be proved to show existence of such "sufficient cause". 7. The question whether a person is the legal representatives of the deceased or not is a fixed question of fact and law and once the status of a person as legal representative is called in question, the court is duty bound in view of the provisions of Order 22, Rule 5 C.P.C. to determine such questions and to hold an inquiry in which parties must be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence to prove their rival contentions. 8. In view of the above, the learned District Judge was duty bound to hold an inquiry into the questions arising from the averments made by the parties respectively in the applications and the replies thereto which he failed to do. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 9. As a result, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur is directed to frame issues as arise out of the controversy in the applications and the replies thereto and afford opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and thereafter dispose of the applications. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur on 2.8.2000. Petition allowed