JUDGMENT Rameshwar Vyas, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the application under Order XXII, Rule 9 CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. In this appeal, respondent No. 3 ? Naveen, owner of the insured vehicle, had expired. Thereafter, an application under Order XXII, Rule 4 CPC was filed by the appellant on 17.04.2015 for taking legal heirs of respondent No. 3 on record. 3. Notices of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as application under Order XXII, Rule 4 CPC to the proposed legal heirs of respondent No.3 were issued, who expired about 20 years back. However, notices could not be served upon them. Thus, this application has been filed after lapse of 20 years of death of deceased respondent No. 3, who is owner of the insured vehicle. 4. There is delay of 1631 days in filing this appeal also. Apart from this, in the appeal impugned award is of Rs.1,14,500/- in an injury case, which is also on the ground of breach of condition regarding non-renewal of driving licence by the driver of insured vehicle. 5. In the above background, this Court does not deem it fit to condone the delay in filing the application for taking on record legal heirs of respondent No. 3. Hence, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected. 6. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as abated.