A. K. MITRA, J. ( 1 ) THE above four applications are inter-related and have been filed in the second appeal being S. A. No. 537/1882. C. A. N. No. 6610 of 2000 ( 2 ) THIS is an application filed on 10. 8. 2000 by one Smt. Mukti Das as the constituted attorney of Smt. Anjali Banerjee the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 in this application. In brief, the case made out in this application is that the respondent No. 1 Smt. Anjali Banerjee as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 154/1971 in the Second Court of learned Additional Munsif Alipore against Upendra Mazumder the sole appellant in this application and also against the respondent No. 2 and 3 herein. The suit is for eviction and recovery of possession and mesne profit. The learned Additional Munsif Second Court Alipore by judgment dated March 31, 1981 decreed the suit on contest against the sole appellant and ex-parte against the respondent/defendant No. 2 in part with cost. ( 3 ) THE defendant No. being the sole appellant herein that is U. L. Mazumder preferred appeal No. 393/1981 against the aforementioned judgment and decree and the learned Additional District Judge, First Court at Alipore by judgment dated 31. 8. 1981 dismissed the said appeal along with some modification in the decree. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the above named sole appellant preferred the instant second appeal being S. A. No. 537/1982. This second appeal was heard under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 19. 2. 1982, the Hon'ble Division Bench directed the appeal to be heard. ( 4 ) IT is further case of the petitioner that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has been living at Siliguri and appointed Smt. Mukti Das the applicant herein as her lawful attorney to take all legal steps. It is also the case of the applicant that appellant U. L. Mazumder died long back on July 19, 1988. The heirs and legal representative of the defendant/petitioner moved an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure being C. O. No. 4069/1991 challenging the order dated 10. 9. 1991 passed by the learned Additional Munsif in Title Suit No. 128/1982 against Anjali Banerjee. But curiously enough, no application for substitution has been filed in the second appeal. The heirs and legal representative of the defendant/petitioner moved an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure being C. O. No. 4069/1991 challenging the order dated 10. 9. 1991 passed by the learned Additional Munsif in Title Suit No. 128/1982 against Anjali Banerjee. But curiously enough, no application for substitution has been filed in the second appeal. The applicant Smt. Mukti Das who is the constituted attorney of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein has filed this application for recording abatement of the instant appeal being S. A. No. 537/1982 and to pass an order of abatement of the above appeal. C. A. N. No. 7808/2000 ( 5 ) THIS application has been filed on 11. 9. 2000 by the heirs and successors of the appellant U. L. Mazumder. In this application, it has been stated that the appellant expired on 19. 7. 88 and the appellant left behind four heirs and successors who are the applicants herein and the heirs of the deceased appellant are Suijuris. It has further been stated in this application that respondent No. 1 in the present appeal that is Smt. Anjali Banerjee preferred another suit for recovery of possession before the learned Munsif Third Court at Alipore being Title Suit No. 119/1977 against the present appellant. It has been further stated in this application that in the said other Title Suit being Title Suit No. 119/1977 (subsequently transferred and renumbered as Title Suit No. 128/1982) steps have been taken by the present applicants for substitution and substitution has been effected. But inadvertently, such steps were omitted to be taken in the Title Suit No. 154/1978 out of which the present second appeal arise in this application. In paragraph 10, it has been stated that the applicants had ever been diligent and had proceeded with the pending litigation with all sincerity and there had been no intentional latches on their part and the present unintentional omission to incorporate their names in place and stead of the deceased appellant cannot be exhibited and/or agitated as a ground for abatement of the appeal. In paragraph 11 of this application, the applicants pray for unconditional apology or the unintentional and inadvertent delay in preferring the instant application for substitution. In paragraph 11 of this application, the applicants pray for unconditional apology or the unintentional and inadvertent delay in preferring the instant application for substitution. ( 6 ) IN the instant application, the applicants pray for substitution of the heirs of the deceased appellant in the present second appeal being S. A. No. 537/1982 on condonation of delay and on setting aside abatement. C. A. N. No. 9072/2000 ( 7 ) THIS is an application filed on 13. 11. 2000 by the applicants Mrs. Manika Mazumder and others who are the heirs and successors of the appellant/defendant (deceased ). This application is an application for amendment of the application being CAN No. 7808/2000. In this application, it has been stated that Manika Mazumder the widow of the deceased appellant has to travel to different parts of America during a maximum period of the year keeping her brother Mukti Das in the premises and her son Sri Subhas Mazumder is residing at America and both her daughters are married and they are also residing in different parts of America. Mrs. Manika Mazumder lives in the tenanted premises. She is widow mostly illiterate and has no legal experience and depends upon her brother Mr. Mukul Das who is also non-conversant with legal aspects. He takes steps as per advice of the lawyer but in the present case lawyer did not advice the petitioner to take any steps for any substitution in such the matter is of 1982 lawyer must be oblivious of the position of the appeal pending in the Hon'ble Court and through ignorance of law no steps have been taken for filing applications for substitution in time. It has further been stated that Title Suit No. 119/1977 renumbered as Title Suit No. 128/1982 is pending before the learned trial Court and in the said suit substitution have been effected and evidence is continuing at the present. The said suit is between the same parties. It has also been stated that when the respondents filed CAN No. 6610/2000 for recording abatement of the appeal in view of failure to take steps for substitution, on receipt of the application the learned lawyer became conscious of his failure and filed CAN No. 7808/2000. The said suit is between the same parties. It has also been stated that when the respondents filed CAN No. 6610/2000 for recording abatement of the appeal in view of failure to take steps for substitution, on receipt of the application the learned lawyer became conscious of his failure and filed CAN No. 7808/2000. It is also stated that U. L. Mazumder since deceased is the defendant in T. S. No. 119/1977 renumbered as T. S. No. 128/1982 is pending before the Court below where the suit is at peremptory state of hearing and evidence is going on, steps for substitution have been duly taken in time in the said suit but through ignorance such steps have not been taken in the present appeal. ( 8 ) IT has been further stated that only after receipt of the respondents' application being CAN No. 6610/2000 for recording abatement the learned lawyer became conscious though it was incumbent upon the learned advocate to advise the petitioners to file applications for substitution but learned advocate failed to advise accordingly due to his ignorance of law and forgetfulness. It has been stated in this application that some facts which are relevant could not be stated in the application being CAN No. 7808/2000 since the learned advocate was under impression that at the time of argument in CAN No. 6610/2000 and CAN No. 7808/2000 the facts can be stated. In paragraph 7 of this application, it has been stated that the petitioner Mrs. Manika Mazumder visits America and she has returned from America only on 1. 10. 2000. The applicants submit in this application that some amendments are required in the application being CAN No. 7898/2000 and the applicants pray for allowing this amendment as mentioned in schedule A and B to this application and prays for insertion of this amendment in CAN No. 7808/2000 the amendments sought for in the schedule are as follows: schedule-A:- In the cause title of application CAN No. 7808 of 2000 be deleted, the following be inserted- ?an application for substitution after setting aside abatement on condonation of delay in making the application. ? schedule-B:- After paragraph 11 of CAN No. 7808 of 2000, the following sub-paragraphs be inserted- (A) That your petitioners are the heirs and successors of the U. L. Majumder since deceased. ? schedule-B:- After paragraph 11 of CAN No. 7808 of 2000, the following sub-paragraphs be inserted- (A) That your petitioners are the heirs and successors of the U. L. Majumder since deceased. The present suit No. 154 of 1978 has been filed against U. L. Majumder, by Smt. Anjali Banerjee. Similarly another Title Suit for eviction from other portion of tenanted premises had been filed against U. L. Majumder, since deceased and the same is pending before learned Alipore Court, your petitioners crave leave to refer the plaint and other documents at the time of hearing. The said U. L. Majumder died on 19. 7. 1988 leaving before the petitioners as heirs and successors. But fact remains that Mrs. Manika Majumder widow lives in the tenanted premises at 3, Bipin Pal Road, but she has to travel to different parts of America during the maximum period of the year keeping her brother Mukul Das in the premises and Mr. Mukul Das, her brother looks after her since her son Sri Subhas Majumder is permanently residing 8, Emanda Lane, Hockessin, DE-19707 USA and her other two married daughters are also permanently residing at USA inasmuch as married daughter Mrs. Chinoo Dutta, residing at 10137, Skylark Drive, Bhuntsville, AL-35803, USA another married daughter Mrs. Bela Kundu is residing at 118, Ridge Way, Statesboro, GA-30458, USA. The petitioner Mrs. Manika Majumder lives in the tenanted premises, she is widow, mostly illiterate, has no legal experience and depends upon her brother Mr. Mukul Das who is also not conversant with legal aspect, he takes steps as per advice of the lawyer but in the present case, lawyer did not advise the petitioners to take any steps for any substitution inasmuch as the matter is of 1982, lawyer must be oblivious of the position of the appeal pending in the Hon'ble Court and through ignorance of law, no steps have been taken for filing application for substitution in time. (b) That T. S. No. 119 of 1977, renumbered as T. S. No. 128 of 1982, is pending before the learned Alipore Court and in the said suit steps have been taken for substitution and substitution has been effected and evidence is continuing in the suit at the present. The said suit is between the same parties. (b) That T. S. No. 119 of 1977, renumbered as T. S. No. 128 of 1982, is pending before the learned Alipore Court and in the said suit steps have been taken for substitution and substitution has been effected and evidence is continuing in the suit at the present. The said suit is between the same parties. (c) That CAN No. 7808 of 2000 has been filed by the petitioners after the receipt of the application filed by the respondents being CAN No. 6610 of 2000 for recording abatement of the appeal in view of failure to take steps for substitution. After receipt of the said application, the learned lawyer become conscious of his failure which has occasioned because of his ignorance of law inasmuch as learned lawyer tenders his unqualified apology for not filing the necessary application for substitution which has occasioned for his ignorance of law. (d) That U. L. Majumder, since deceased is the defendant in T. S. No. 119 of 1997 renumbered as T. S. No. 128 of 1982 now pending before the learned Alipore Court where suit is at peremptory stage of hearing and evidence is going on. Steps for substitution have been duly taken in time in the said suit through ignorance, such similar steps have been taken in the present appeal. (e) That the petitioners and their learned advocate became aware of not filing of application for substitution only after receipt of the respondent's application being CAN No. 6610/2000. The said non-filing of application for substitution in the present appeal is due to forgetfulness of the learned advocate, although it was incumbent upon the learned advocate to advise the petitioners to file application for substitution but learned advocate failed to advise accordingly due to his ignorance of law and forgetfulness. (f) That above facts have not been stated in the present CAN No. 7808 of 2000 by the learned advocate since he was under the impression that arguments on the above facts would be advanced at the time of hearing of the application being CAN No. 7808 of 2000 and CAN No. 6610 of 2000 as such ignorance either in not filing application for substitution in time or not stating above facts in the application being S. A. No. 537 of 1982. ? c. A. N. No. 4717/2001 ( 9 ) THIS application has been filed on 23. 5. ? c. A. N. No. 4717/2001 ( 9 ) THIS application has been filed on 23. 5. 2001 by the applicants who are the heirs and successors of U. L. Majumder (deceased) and Manikaprava Majumder has widow presently deceased. It is stated in this application that Manikaprava Majumder died on 23. 3. 01 while she was in USA and her heirs and successors the applicants herein are has son and daughters. It is further stated that the application has been preferred within the period of limitation and the applicants are suijuris. In this application the applicants pray for recording the date of Manika Majumder and recording of substitution of the present applicants in her place and stead. ( 10 ) THE above four applications as would appear from the facts and circumstances narrated above, are inter-related and center round only one question as to whether the application for recording abatement of the appeal should be allowed or the application for substitution of U. L. Majumder will be allowed and the last application of 2001 that is substitution of Manikaprava Majumder is only consequential. ( 11 ) AS would appear from the facts stated above, the death of the defendant U. L. Majumder occurred in 1988. Steps were taken for substitution in the other suit pending as yet before the learned trial Judge on more or less the self same cause of action. The grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement and consequent substitution of the heirs of the appellant after 18 years are only two, one is the ignorance of the learned advocate and the other is forgetfulness of the learned advocate and/or the constituted attorney of the litigant. No where it has been stated in this application that two sets of lawyers are conducting two suits in the Alipore Court between the same parties. It is not understood that when the learned advocate has knowledge that substitution is to be effected within time and in fact, substitution has been done in one suit, it is not known why the learned advocate will be forgetfulness in filing the application or substitution for such a long time that is for 18 years or more. It is a fact that this appeal has been filed in the year 1982. It is a fact that this appeal has been filed in the year 1982. It is also a fact that the appeal has been heard under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 19. 2. 1982. It is further a fact that the constituted attorney of Shri U. L. Majumder has been in touch or contact with the learned advocate who has been pursuing this appeal inasmuch as paper books have been filed and all steps have been taken. On the other hand, it must be stated that when a person is pursuing the appeal diligently as it appears from the order sheets of the appeal and has been contacting his learned advocate in the High Court regularly and he has been conducting other suit pending in the trial Court also diligently and took steps for substitution and got the substitution effected it is not known why he will intentionally or deliberately commit this negligence and latches. It is, therefore, to be seen whether the explanation appears to be satisfactory or the cause for delay is said to be sufficient cause. ( 12 ) MR. Roychowdhury appearing for the appellant submits that the cause shown in the application for the delay is not a sufficient cause and the delay should not be condoned since it is such a long delay and practically no cause has been shown and abatement should be recorded insofar as appeal is concerned. Mr. Roychowdhury also submits that another suit is going on which is admittedly at the peremptory stage between the same parties and in no way, the applicants that is the heirs of the deceased appellant U. L. Majumder will be prejudiced, if this appeal stands abated. Mr. Roychowdhury in support of his contention relied on a decision reported in 1997 (7) SCC 536 (P. K. Ramchandran v. State of Kerala and Ors.) and submits that in this decision, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the explanation must be reasonable or satisfactory and equity cannot be the basis for extending the period of limitation. According to Mr. Roychowdhury normally technicality should not stand in the way of substantial justice but in the instant case, there is no explanation which can be said to be reasonable or satisfactory. ( 13 ) ON the other hand, Mr. According to Mr. Roychowdhury normally technicality should not stand in the way of substantial justice but in the instant case, there is no explanation which can be said to be reasonable or satisfactory. ( 13 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Ghoshal appearing for the applicant/respondent submits that when two suits are pending in one substitution has been effected within time what may be the other reason for not making substitution in the appeal in connection with the other suit and only explanation can be ignorance of law of the learned advocate or the forgetfulness of the learned advocate and for such a reason the litigant should not suffer. Mr. Ghoshal also submits that if this appeal is dismissed on this technical ground, the suit which is at the peremptory stage pending between the same parties must suffer prejudice. Mr. Ghoshal also submits that there cannot be better explanation or better reason which can be given in this case inasmuch as when a constituted attorney is conducting two suits and he takes steps properly and effectively for conducting one suit and he also takes effective steps or conducting the second appeal (the instant second appeal) by preparing paper books, serving notices etc. what can be the other reason that he will not deliberately or negligently takes steps for substitution in this second appeal to the prejudice of himself. Mr. Ghoshal in support of his contention relies on a decision reported in 1971 (1) CLJ 284 (Mahendra Mondal and Ors. v. Banamali Mondal and Ors.) and in this case the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that ignorance of law can be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Mr. Ghoshal also relies on a decision reported in 29 Calwn 472 (Krishna Mohan Ghosh v. Surpati Banerjee and Ors.) in which the Hon'ble Division Bench observed that the applicant stated in his affidavit that although he was aware of the death of the respondent, he did not know that substitution of his legal representative was necessary or it was his duty to bring in the said legal representative on record and on this score the Hon'ble Division Bench condoned the delay. Mr. Mr. Ghoshal lastly relies on a decision reported in 2000 (3) SCC 54 (G. P. Srivastava v. R. K. Raizada and Ors.) in which the Hon'ble Apex Court observed:-?the words 'was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing' must be liberally construed to enable the Court to do complete justice between the parties particularly when no negligence or inaction is imputable to the erring party. ? ( 14 ) CONSIDERED the submissions made by the counsel for the respective parties and considered the averments made in the above four applications, it is needless to mention that there are different decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as also of this Court that the reasons for delay must be satisfactory and technicality should not stand in the way of doing substantial justice in a case. In the instant case when two simultaneous proceedings were going on it cannot be said that in one suit substitution has been effected within time and in the other second appeal in connection with the other suit pending between the same parties a litigant will not take steps for substitution to his own peril. It must be a fact that due to ignorance of law the person conducting the case did not convey this fact to his learned advocate conducting the second appeal or the learned advocate conducting second appeal because of his ignorance of legal procedures or forgetfulness did not advise his client to take steps for substitution in the second appeal. ( 15 ) IN my opinion, the explanation, therefore, appears to be reasonable and satisfactory and the appeal at this stage should not be allowed to be abated on the ground of delay in effecting the substitution of the appellant U. L. Majumder. I, therefore, agree with the contention made in he application being CAN Nos. 7808/2000 and 9072/2000 and also in agreement if the contentions made by Mr. Ghoshal in this matter and I respectfully disagree with the contention made by Mr. Roychowdhury. In consequence, the application being CAN No. 6610/2000 is dismissed and the applications being CAN No. 7808/2000 and CAN No. 9072/2000 are allowed. Consequently, the application for substitution being CAN No. 4717/2001 for substituting the heirs of Manika Majumder who are now already on record being consequent and being within the time of limitation is also allowed. Roychowdhury. In consequence, the application being CAN No. 6610/2000 is dismissed and the applications being CAN No. 7808/2000 and CAN No. 9072/2000 are allowed. Consequently, the application for substitution being CAN No. 4717/2001 for substituting the heirs of Manika Majumder who are now already on record being consequent and being within the time of limitation is also allowed. The above four applications are thus disposed of and there will be no order as to costs. Application disposed of