JUDGMENT Honble Shishir Kumar, J.—The present, writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.9.2005 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 4 Hamirpur and order dated 19.1.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hamirpur. 2. The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the respondent No. 1 filed an Original Suit No. 10 of 1997 against the petitioners’ predecessors Shivraj and Prabhu Dayal for cancellation of sale-deed dated 12.1.1989. During the pendency of the said suit, the defendant No. 1 Shivraj died on 18.7.2002 and the other defendant Prabhu Dayal also died on 27.5.2001. The plaintiff respondent and his Counsel was having the said information about the date of death but no application for substitution was moved within time. An application was moved on 21.4.2003 describing the same under Order XXII Rule 2 and under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. An objection was filed on behalf of the petitioners that the application under Order XXII Rule 2 and under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable and no amendment application can be given to substitute Shivkali W/o Shivraj on the date of filing the said application Shivkali W/o Shivraj has already died. No date regarding the date of death of the persons to whom application of substitution has been made has not been given. Both the parties are living in the said village in a very short distance, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they had no knowledge regarding the death of Shivraj who died on 18.7.2002 and Prabhudayal died on 27.5.2001. It has further been stated that as the application has been filed after 150 days and no prayer in the application for setting aside the abatement has been made or any application has been filed, therefore, the application for substitution cannot be considered but the trial Court without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, has allowed the said application vide its order dated 19.1.2004. The petitioners aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has filed a revision and the revision too has been dismissed by order dated 13.9.2005. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. 4. The petitioners aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has filed a revision and the revision too has been dismissed by order dated 13.9.2005. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that as the parties are living in the same village and their houses are nearby in the village, as such, it cannot be believed that they were not having any knowledge regarding the death. It has also been stated that as no date has been mentioned regarding the date of death of the persons to be substituted, as such, the application was not maintainable. It has also clearly been averred that the plaintiffs-respondents have participated in the funeral and their substitution application has not been filed within time and without making an application for setting aside the abatement and even Section 5 application has not been filed, therefore, the application for substitution cannot be allowed. 5. A finding to this effect that respondents came to know regarding the death of the defendants on 21.8.2003 is not turn out from any relevant evidence that how they came to know on that date regarding date of death. In view of the aforesaid fact, the petitioners submit that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Reliance has been placed upon two judgements of the Apex Court reported in 1997(8) JT 189 SC, P.K.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another, and reliance has been placed upon Para 6 of the judgement. The same is being reproduced below:- “Law of limitation may harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs.” 7. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs.” 7. In support of the aforesaid contention it has been submitted that the Court has not recorded any satisfaction that the explanation for the delay was either reasonable or satisfactory, which is essential prerequisite to condonation of delay. 8. Another judgement relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioners is JT 2000(4) SC 408, Lal Chand v. Sh.Paras Ram (D) by Lrs.& others. 9. In the aforesaid case the appellant was died on 23.6.1994 and an application was moved on 1.2.1999 on behalf of the respondents for dismissing the appeal as abated. It was thereafter that an application was filed on behalf of the appellant for substitution and for setting aside the abatement. The Apex Court held that the fact which was stated in the affidavit in paras 3 and 4 has held that the explanation was not satisfactory and as such, rejected the application for substitution. 10. It has further been submitted that on 28.2.2003 an information was given by the Counsel for the defendant regarding the death of two persons namely Shivraj and Prabhu Dayal, then first time they have came to know that they have died and as such, immediately an application was filed on 21.4.2003. Petitioners further submits that assuming without admitting if the plaintiffs-respondents were having knowledge regarding death of the two defendants on 28.2.2003 but the application for substitution was filed on 21.4.2003 about two months thereafter but no explanation of the said application for substitution has been given that in spite of the knowledge on 28.2.2003 why the application is being filed after two months. 11. In view of the aforesaid fact, the petitioners submit that the order passed by both the Courts are liable to be set aside. 12. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and it has been submitted that immediately after coming to know the respondents filed an application for substitution on 21.4.2003 explaining the delay before the Trial Court and the same was allowed. 12. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and it has been submitted that immediately after coming to know the respondents filed an application for substitution on 21.4.2003 explaining the delay before the Trial Court and the same was allowed. It has also been submitted that Nattu is residing in the same village but his resident was situated 1/2 kilometres distance from the house of the petitioners and he has never participated in the funeral and the substitution application which has been filed a prayer has been made for condonation of delay. Further submission has been made that the Court has jurisdiction to substitute the name of the heirs of deceased on the information of the parties to decide the case on merit not on the technical ground to reject the substitution application, due to the aforesaid reason the substitution application has been allowed. There is no illegality in the order passed by the Court below and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. The Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon a judgement of the Apex Court reported in 2002 (93) R.D. 56, Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao and others, and has placed reliance upon para 12 of the said judgement. The same is being reproduced below : “A Court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality.” 14. The another judgement relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents is the Apex Court judgement reported in 2001 (45) ALR 192, M.S.Grewal and and another v. Deep Chand Sood and others and has placed reliance upon para 27 of the said judgement. The same is being reproduced below : “27. The another judgement relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents is the Apex Court judgement reported in 2001 (45) ALR 192, M.S.Grewal and and another v. Deep Chand Sood and others and has placed reliance upon para 27 of the said judgement. The same is being reproduced below : “27. Currently judicial attitude has taken a shift from the old Draconian concept and the traditional jurisprudential system-affectation of the people has been taken note of rather seriously and the judicial concern thus stands on a footing to provide expeditious relief to an individual when needed rather than taking recourse to the old conservative doctrine of civil Courts obligation to award damages. As a matter of fact the decision in D.K. Basu has not only dealt with the issue in a manner apposite to the social need of the country but the learned Judge with his usual felicity of expression firmly established the current trend of ‘justice oriented approach’. Law Courts will lose its efficacy if it cannot possibly respond to the need of the society-technicalities there might be many but the justice oriented approach ought not to be thwarted on the basis of such technicality since technicality cannot and ought not to out-weigh the course of justice.” 15. Further reliance has been placed by the Counsel for the respondents in Nooruddin v. Dr. K.L. Anand, (1995) 1 SCC 242 and in Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1997 SC 1236 . In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that “Equally the judicial process should never become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of Court to subvert justice”. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interest of justice and not merely on making out of a legal point. The interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. The further reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the respondents of a judgement of this Court in Writ Petition No. 43189 of 1993, Shiv Narain Singh v. Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad and others. It has been stated that there can be from lapse on the part of the litigant concerned and that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. 16. It has been stated that there can be from lapse on the part of the litigant concerned and that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. 16. The further submission has been made by the respondents that as a cost of Rs. 50/- in allowing the substitution application has been passed and the cost has been deposited by the respondents and both the Court below has taken into consideration the aforesaid fact, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 17. I have heard learned Counsel for the the petitioners and Counsel for the respondents and have perused the record. 18. From the record, it is clear that the plaintiffs-respondents came to know regarding the death of the plaintiff defendant on 28.2.2003 but admittedly an application has been filed on 21.4.2003 after a lapse of about 53 days. There is no explanation to the said application that why the application is being made in spite of the fact that they were having knowledge on 28.2.2003. Under the law the period of limitation for filing the substitution application is 90+60 days. After 150 days, the abatement is automatic in case no application is filed. From the perusal of the application filed before the trial Court, no separate application for setting aside the abatement has been made. Only this has been averred that the benefit of Section 5 be given in case there is any delay and if there is an abatement, the abatement be set aside. It is well settled in law that for the purposes of condoning the delay if an application under Section 5 is filed the day-to-day delay is to be explained. There is nothing on record or any averment has been made in the application that the day-to-day delay has been explained even the period from the date of knowledge if it is presumed that the respondents came to know regarding the death on 28.2.2003 but no explanation for filing the application for substitution on 21.4.2003 has been given from 28.2.2003 to 21.4.2003. From the averment made in the objection as well as in the counter-affidavit, it is clear that both the parties are residents of the same village in a distance of half kilometre, therefore, the story set up by the respondents that in spite of the fact that Shivraj died on 18.7.2002 and Prabhu Dayal died on 27.5.2001, they were not having any knowledge cannot be believed. 19. As regards, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the liberal view should be taken and sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It has also been submitted that the length of delay is no matter; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes, delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. It was further expounded by the Supreme Court that there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned and that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him unless the explanation smacks of malafides if it has been put forth as part of a dilatory strategy. The Apex Court in one of the case has rightly observed that a Court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause and the words “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. 20. In the entire perspective, it does appear that the delay was deliberate in spite of the fact that the respondents were having knowledge regarding the death on 22.2.2003, which is apparent on the basis of the statement of the respondents. But no application prior to 21.4.2003 has been filed. No explanation has been given by the respondents that why in spite of the knowledge regarding the death of two defendants on 22.2.2003 application was not filed within a reasonable period. There is no explanation in the application filed by the respondents. But no application prior to 21.4.2003 has been filed. No explanation has been given by the respondents that why in spite of the knowledge regarding the death of two defendants on 22.2.2003 application was not filed within a reasonable period. There is no explanation in the application filed by the respondents. In various cases Apex Court has held that for the purposes of benefit under Section 5, the sufficient cause means the sufficient reason has to be explained for not approaching the Court within time and day-to-day delay has to be explained in the application. If that has not been explained the same is fatal. No doubt the law of limitation may effect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribed and the Courts have got no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. 21. This is also a case in which admittedly Shivraj died on 18.7.2002 and Prabhudayal died on 27.5.2001 and the distance of residence of both the plaintiff and defendants are hardly half kilometres in the same village. But no application was filed within time. Even after coming to know regarding the date of death, no application has been filed and no explanation has been made in the application for substitution that why the application is being filed after 53 days from the date of knowledge. From the perusal of the application it is also apparent that no separate application under Section 5 and an application for setting aside abatement has been filed. Only in one line it has been stated that if there is any delay that may be condoned and if any abatement is there, the abatement be set aside. 22. In my view the aforesaid explanation is not satisfactory for the purposes of getting benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act. The meaning of sufficient cause is that sufficient reason has to be explained in the application and affidavit for taking the benefit of Section 5 of the Act. If that has not been done a party is not entitled for any benefit. 23. The meaning of sufficient cause is that sufficient reason has to be explained in the application and affidavit for taking the benefit of Section 5 of the Act. If that has not been done a party is not entitled for any benefit. 23. In view of the aforesaid fact and in view of the Apex Court judgements, as there is no reasonable explanation in the application for substitution and there is no day-to-day delay explained, therefore, in my opinion, allowing the application by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 24. In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 13.9.2005 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) and 19.1.2005 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. 25. There shall be no order as to costs. ———