JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.368/1998 was admitted by this Court for hearing and interim order was also granted in favour of the appellant. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent no.1 Jai Narayan died on 23.12.2002. The appellants submitted application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Jai Narayan. On this application, this Court ordered for issuing notice of legal representatives of said respondent. On 17.7.2006, per-emptory order was passed. 3. According to the appellants, inadvertently, wrong notices were filed and, therefore, in the office, the appeal was dismissed following the per-emptory order of this Court. 4. The appellant submitted application for restoration of second appeal and an application under LRs. of Bhera Ram v. LRs. of Jai Narayan . Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The learned Single Judge dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and in consequence, dismissed the restoration application by the impugned order dated 28.3.2008. 5. It is true that there was lapse on the part of the appellant but it cannot be said that it was a willful act. The appellant inadvertently filed wrong notices but that was through the advocate and, therefore, the appellant cannot be penalised for the mistake of the office of the advocate. In that situation, a liberal view could be taken to advance cause of justice in a case where this Court was of the view that substantial questions of law are involved in the appeal. 6. In view of the above reasons, this appeal of the appellant is allowed, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and in view of the reasons given in the restoration application, the restoration application is also allowed and the S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.368/1998 is restored to its original number.Special Appeal Allowed. *******