JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) , Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. on 19.12.2016 whereby she dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceaseddefendant No.3 Anirudh Singh and deceased-defendant No.4 Swarn Singh. 2. It is not in dispute that both the aforesaid defendants have expired prior to the institution of the suit and have infact died on 19.01.2012 and 22.02.2014, respectively, whereas, the suit came to be instituted only on 19.04.2014. Even though, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Court below could not have dismissed the suit against the said defendants as having been abated, but I do not find any finding having been recorded by the learned Court below. Even though, the findings recorded by the learned Court below in the order impugned herein read thus:- "5. Now in the present application, it is admitted fact that defendant No.3 and defendant No.4 have expired. However, applicant has not produced on record death certificates of both the deceased defendants, which was necessary to ascertain the actual date of death of said defendants. Applicant in his rejoinder has contended that said defendants have expired before the institution of present suit as per report of process server dated 22-4-2014. However, perusal of said report shows that process server has merely reported the factum of death of defendant No.3 and 4. Whether said defendants have expired before the institution of present suit, this factum could be ascertained only by perusal of death certificate, which as mentioned above is not produced on record. Further, even if for arguments sake it is assumed that death of defendant No.3 and 4 took place prior to institution of the suit even then present application is barred by limitation. As per zimini order dated 2-5-2014 applicant was informed about death of defendant No.3 and 4 and was directed by this Court to take necessary steps qua substitution of L.R''s of deceased defendants, whereupon applicant has filed present application only on dated 3-9-2014 i.e. after expiry of 120 days. Evidently there is delay of more than one month in filing present application but applicant has failed to file requisite application for condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. Evidently there is delay of more than one month in filing present application but applicant has failed to file requisite application for condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. Moreover, no prayer for condonation of delay has been made even in present application. Further, applicant has not shown any sufficient cause as to why present application was not filed within limitation period when he already came to know qua death of defendant No.3 and 4 on dated 2-5-2014. Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh (dead) versus Jagdish Singh and others , (2010) AIR(Supreme Court) 3043 have observed that justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing his rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of his valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of acting vigilantly. It is again a well-settled law that applicant who has acted negligently cannot claim the benefit of provision of Article 5 of the Limitation Act." 3. As already observed, no findings appear to have been recorded by the learned Court below qua the so-called abatement so as to furnish a cause to the petitioner to be aggrieved. 4. Therefore, this petition is misconceived and dismissed as such, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.