JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard learned Counsel of the parties on the substitution application and the delay condonation application, it appears that on 9.5.2012 learned Counsel of the appellants sought adjournment for taking steps for the substitution. No such steps were taken and on 27.5.2014, the Court was constrained to pass the order of abatement of the appeal. Now, this substitution application has been moved on 26.6.2014 along with the delay condonation application seeking to condone the delay of 941 days. It was argued that firstly it was the bounden duty, under Order 22 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code, on the part of the respondents’ Counsel to extend the information of death of respondent no. 1, but no such information was ever rendered in the Court and further after 9.5.2012, the matter was never listed up until 27.5.2014. Learned Counsel of the appellants has relied upon the precedent of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Swami Prasad & Another v. Lakhan Singh (dead) & Others, reported in (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 1043, wherein it was held that in a very old second appeal, which was pending for several years without being listed for hearing, the Court should take a lenient view in considering application for condoning delay and setting aside abatement. This was all the more warranted because the Counsel of the respondents informed the Court about death of first respondent nearly eight years after the death. Learned Counsel of the appellants further argued that if at all the appeal had to be abated on 27.5.2014, it could have been so only against the respondent no. 1, and not against the respondents no. 2 and 3, while this Court has erred (may be unwittingly) in abating the appeal against all the respondents. Per contra, learned Counsel of the respondents has placed reliance upon the precedent of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Katari Suryanarayana & Others v. Koppisetti Subba Rao & Others, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 183 . Pursuant to this precedent of Hon’ble Apex Court, it was argued by learned Counsel of the respondents that where the parties were quite neighbours to each other, nonetheless the substitution application was filed with the delay of 2381 days and 2601 days, then the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that it is difficult to accept such a substitution application along with so much inordinate delay. I think the precedent, whereupon the reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel of the respondents, is not applicable in the present controversy for the reason that both the parties though hail from the same Roorkee town, but come from different Mohallas. They are not neighbours to each other. Further, the delay is not so inordinate as to ignore the explanation of the appellants in moving such substitution application and the delay condonation application. Hence, the objections filed by the respondents are rejected. Application for objection (CLMA 8655/2014) stands disposed of accordingly. Delay condonation application (CLMA 6647/2014) and the substitution application (CLMA 6648/2014) are allowed. Application for setting aside abatement (MCC 393/2014) stands disposed of accordingly. Learned Counsel of the appellants is permitted to incorporate the amendments in the array of parties in the Court itself. No amended memo of parties needs to be filed. List this matter for final hearing sometime in the month of January 2015.