ORDER : Devan M.Desai, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jaimin A. Gandhi for the applicants. 2. By way of this application, the applicants have prayed for condonation of delay of 471 days in filing an application to bring legal heirs of applicant No.15 Jyotiben d/o Narandas Kikala-original plaintiff No.1-E. 3. To understand and appreciate the rival contentions, the application of the applicants is reproduced hereinunder:- “1. The applicants state that Applicant No. 15 (Appellant No. 15) passed away and so a Civil Application is filed for bringing legal heirs on record, wherein there is a delay of 471. days. 2. The applicant submits that they were not aware about the legal requirement of joining the legal heirs of a deceased litigant. The applicant on being instructed to join the legal heirs, thereafter filed application for the purpose of joining the legal heirs. Hence the delay. Hence, the delay. The applicant tenders unconditional apology for the delay in filing the civil application for joining the legal heirs. 3. The applicants therefore pray as under: (A) The Hon'ble Court may admit and allow the application of the applicant and condone the delay. (B) The Hon'ble Court may grant any further relief as it deems.” 4. Over and above the said application, the learned advocate for the applicants has placed on record an additional affidavit 30.03.2024, which was taken on record. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow: “1. I respectfully say and submit that we the plaintiffs were not aware about the legal requirement of joining the legal heirs of the deceased during the pendency of the suit. Accordingly, we did not intimate about the death of one of the plaintiff to the advocate. Subsequently when we challenged the judgment and decree passed in the civil suit before the Honorable High court by way of first appeal, our advocate required us to obtain signature of all the appellants on the vakalatnama. At that point in time we intimated about the death of one of the plaintiff appellant. Accordingly the advocate informed us about the legal requirement of filing necessary application for the purpose of joining the legal heirs of the deceased. Immediately thereafter we initiated the necessary procedure and filed the application for joining legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff / appellant. Hence this delay. 2. Accordingly the advocate informed us about the legal requirement of filing necessary application for the purpose of joining the legal heirs of the deceased. Immediately thereafter we initiated the necessary procedure and filed the application for joining legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff / appellant. Hence this delay. 2. I respect say and submit that the plaintiffs/ appellants hold the competent courts with high esteem and respect. However, we litigants were completely unaware about the legal requirement of joining the legal heirs of the deceased. We hereby tender unconditional apology for the delay in filing application for joining legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff appellant.” 5. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that original plaintiff No.1-E Jyotiben d/o Narandas Kikala has passed away on 20.10.2018 during the pendency of the suit. The original suit was for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit came to be decreed on 19.02.2022 and when the said judgment and decree came to be challenged by way of First Appeal, the applicants found that the heirs of deceased plaintiff No.1-E were not brought on record. Hence, the application to bring the legal heirs of the deceased Jyotiben d/o Narandas Kikala came to be filed along with the present application for condonation of delay. 5.1 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the applicants has placed reliance upon the following decisions; (i) Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Pramod Gupta (Smt) (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors reported in (2003) 3 SCC 272 (ii) Banwari Lal Vs. Balbir Singh reported in 2015 (0) AIJEL-SC 57003. (iii) Order dated 15.07.2019 passed in Civil Application (For Bringing Heirs) No.1 of 2019 in R/First Appeal No.2889 of 2019 with Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No.2 of 2019 in R/First Appeal No.2989 of 2019 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhavanbhai Govabhai vs. The Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation (Irrigation) Officer. While placing reliance upon the aforesaid decision, learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that while deciding the application for condonation of delay, a justice oriented approach is required to be adopted and the procedural lapses cannot come in the way of substantial justice. While placing reliance upon the aforesaid decision, learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that while deciding the application for condonation of delay, a justice oriented approach is required to be adopted and the procedural lapses cannot come in the way of substantial justice. It is further submitted that the applicants were not aware about the legal intricacies and they were not aware about the legal position that heirs of deceased plaintiff were to be joined in the said proceedings and therefore, they could not inform the learned advocate who appeared in the learned trial Court. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Manan Shah for the respondents vehemently objected in granting of the application and submitted that the deceased has passed away on 20.10.2018 i.e. pending suit and the suit abated after a period of 90 days and thereafter, the trial proceeded. During the trial also, plaintiffs have deposed vide Exhibits-123, 145 and 146. Even during the trial, no steps were taken by the surviving plaintiffs to bring the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff No.1-E on record. It is further submitted that decree itself is a nullity against the heirs of the deceased plaintiff. It is further submitted that in the present application, no prayer for setting aside abatement has been prayed for and the application is as vague as not mentioning the date of death and not mentioning the sufficient reasons for not bringing the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff within the stipulated period of limitation. Even the contentions which is raised in the additional affidavit, there is no sufficient explanation which can be said to be a sufficient cause. Ignorance of law is no excuse, applying such principle, learned advocate for the respondents has submitted that the explanation raised in the additional affidavit is not a bonafide explanation. Even in absence of a specific prayer for setting aside abatement, no application for condonation of delay can be entertained in the First Appeal. It is further submitted that since the original plaintiffs did not pray for setting aside abatement and did not pray for condonation of delay in the original suit proceedings, such application in the First Appeal is not required to be entertained. 6.1. It is further submitted that the decisions which have been relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicants are on a different footing. 6.1. It is further submitted that the decisions which have been relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicants are on a different footing. In both the decisions, an application for setting aside the abatement was prayed for and thereafter, the delay was condoned by the Hon’ble Bench. It is further pointed out by the learned advocate for the respondents from the impugned judgment and decree, that the deceased plaintiff did not remain present and neither cross-examine the defendants nor filed any written submissions and hence, the explanation which has been given in the additional affidavit falls flat. 6.2. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following decisions: Gurnam Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others Vs. Gurbachan Kaur (Dead) by Legal Representatives reported in (2017) 13 SCC 414 . State of Gujarat Vs. Chandramanishanker Jadhavlal Sanghvi reported in 1963 (0) AIJEL-HC 211828. Jagdish Prasad and Others Vs. Sukh Ram reported in (1991) 1 SCC 158. Order dated 29.08.2011 passed in Civil Application – For bringing heirs No.7085 of 2011 in Second Appeal No.246 of 2010 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Hansraj Chandiram Bajaj S/o Late Kalawati D/o Chandumal Sakulmal W/o Chandiram Bajaj Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 247448 Raniben D/o Chandumal Sabumal W/o Ramchandra Peshumal Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 247447. 6.3. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the respondents that failure to bring legal heirs of deceased party on record within the stipulated time, the proceedings automatically stands abated on expiry of the statutory period of limitation. It is further submitted that the appellate Court cannot pass orders under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code in respect of party who has died during the pendency of suit and no steps were taken to bring heirs of deceased party during trial. 7. In the re-joinder, learned advocate for the applicants has requested that the applicants may be permitted to amend the application and the reasons given by the learned advocate for the applicant for making such amendment is that there is no affidavit in reply filed by the respondents and applicants were not aware about such contention being raised by respondent. The applicants cannot be put in a surprising position. The applicants cannot be put in a surprising position. Had such contention been raised by respondents in affidavit in reply, the applicants would have filed draft amendment. 8. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondents objected in permitting the applicants to amend the application and submitted that no such permission can be granted at this stage. Even on previous adjournments, contention of non- maintainability of application was submitted and the applicants had ample opportunity to amend the prayer. Even additional affidavit was filed by applicants to explain sufficient cause as the main application was very vague. But applicants chose not to add any prayer for setting aside abatement. In my view, the objection raised by learned advocate for respondent has force and no permission to amend the application can be granted after hearing the matter for a considerable time. Hence, request to amend application is rejected. 9. I have considered the submissions more particularly, application and the additional affidavit filed by the applicants. The application for condonation of delay is very vague and even does not disclose any date of death and does not disclose any explanation as to why the delay has occurred in bringing the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff on record. Even the additional affidavit is silent with regard to the bonafide explanation. What has been pleaded in the application, is lack of legal knowledge regarding joining of legal heirs of deceased plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. Such explanation is not acceptable for the simple reason that after the death of deceased plaintiff on 20.10.2018, remaining plaintiffs deposed and conducted the trial, it cannot be presumed that the plaintiffs did not inform the learned advocate concerned in the trial Court. It transpires that the plaintiffs were aware about the date of death and with some intention, the application for bringing the legal heirs was not filed. Such presumption can be attributed from the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the applicants that plaintiffs did not find it appropriate to file any application to bring heirs of deceased plaintiff on record of trial Court. From such submission, it cannot be said that the remaining plaintiffs were not aware about the legal requirement to bring the heirs of deceased plaintiff on record. From such submission, it cannot be said that the remaining plaintiffs were not aware about the legal requirement to bring the heirs of deceased plaintiff on record. The submission canvassed by the learned advocate for the applicants that a prayer for setting aside abatement is not to be made in an application for condonation of delay, has no force. Whenever an application for condonation of delay is filed beyond the period of limitation, a formal prayer for setting aside abatement is a mandatory rule of law. Submission canvassed by the learned advocate for the applicants is that the prayer for setting aside abatement can be prayed along with the prayer for bringing legal heirs of deceased party on record, is also contrary to settled principles of law. Normally, whenever an application for condoning of delay is filed with a prayer to condone delay, a separate prayer for setting aside abatement is not required but such rule has an exception. If the application for condonation of delay does not disclose any sufficient cause, the same as in the present case, a prayer for setting aside is a rule of law. In the present case as observed earlier the averment in the application for condonation of delay is want of legal knowledge whereas the submission of learned advocate for applicant is that the plaintiffs did not find appropriate to make an application for bringing heirs of deceased plaintiff as deceased plaintiff had no role to play in the suit proceedings. Such contradictory stand does not warrant this Court to exercise discretion to be exercised in favour of applicants. 10. The decisions which have been relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicants are not applicable to the present case, more particularly, in the case of Banwari Lal (supra) , in which, an application for setting aside abatement was prayed for. Even in the case of Bhavanbhai Govabhai (supra) a prayer for setting aside was also prayed for and after considering the explanations assigned in the application, the abatement was set aside and delay was condoned. In the case of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by Lrs. & Ors. (supra) , was arsing out of a Land Acquisition Act. Even in the case of Bhavanbhai Govabhai (supra) a prayer for setting aside was also prayed for and after considering the explanations assigned in the application, the abatement was set aside and delay was condoned. In the case of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by Lrs. & Ors. (supra) , was arsing out of a Land Acquisition Act. The proceedings under Land Acquisition Act being a beneficial enactment, strict adherence of the provisions of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be viewed leniently and after considering the facts on hand, the delay was condoned. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in para No.36 of the said decision which is reproduced hereinbelow: “36. For all the reasons stated above, we are unable to approve the decision or the manner of disposal given by the High Court in these cases, which resulted in grave injustice to the remaining appellants in denying them of their right to have an adjudication of their claims on merits. The High Court ought to have condoned the delay as prayed for, keeping in view the pendency of the main appeals on its file, adopting a liberal and reasonable approach, which would have facilitated an effective adjudication of the rights of parties on either side, avoiding summary rejection of the appeals in entirety. The judgment and decrees passed by the High Court in all these appeals are set aside and appeals are remitted to the High Court to be restored to their original files for being disposed of afresh on merits of the claims of both parties and in accordance with law. These appeals are allowed on the above terms, with no order as to costs.” 11. In the present case, rest of plaintiffs can pursue the First Appeal and no injustice would be cause to rest of the applicants in agitating their contention in the First Appeal. It is also not the case of applicants and other co-plaintiffs that without impleadment of heirs of deceased plaintiff, no effective adjudication could be arrived at by the Court. 12. Thus, in absence of any bonafide explanation for the condonation of delay, I am of the view that the application is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. No order as to costs.