IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 349 OF 2009 IN STAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) NO. 1271 OF 2009 DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND S.D.O. AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus SHRI ALFRED CUNHA, MUMBAI ... Respondent Ms. Susan Linhares, Addl. Government Advocate for the Applicants. Mrs. A. Agni, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- S.B. DESHMUKH, J. Date:- 30th September, 2009 P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking condonation of about 123 days delay occurred in impleading the legal representatives of deceased respondent. On behalf of respondent, reply is presented in the Court. The same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. Copy is served to the Advocate for the applicant. 3. Advocate on behalf of the respondent submits that First Appeal no. 254/2005 is filed by the respondent (deceased person) in this Court. In that appeal, on account of death of the appellant therein, application for substitution was moved by the legal representatives before the Court and Order came to be passed on 22.01.2009. Copy of the said application for substitution was served to the present applicant. In substance, argument is that the present applicants were aware of the death of the sole respondent and the fact that substitution was ordered by this Court. Further, it has been submitted that no explanation is tendered for condonation of 123 days delay occurred. It is not possible to countenance the submission of the Counsel appearing for the respondent, for two reasons, death of persons who are party to the civil proceedings is usual phenomena experienced by the Civil Courts and therefore Code of Civil Procedure stands amended vide provisions of Order 22 Rule 10-A. Under this amendment, the contract between the Advocate and deceased person, stands subsisted and Advocate for the deceased person may inform the Court or bring this fact to the knowledge of the Court. Further it is provided that the Court should give notice of this fact to the other side enabling the other side of the proceedings to take steps for substitution of the legal representatives. 4. On the case at hand, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent that this fact was brought to the notice of the present applicant by serving the copy of substitution application in the other appeal wherein the respondent is appellant. Fact remains that in this proceeding no such procedure has been followed by the Advocate for respondent. Condonation of delay is a matter of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Court has to take into consideration the sufficiency of the ground raised. 5. So far as this case is concerned, death of the respondent is not disputed. Date of filing of this application is also not disputed. I am satisfied that no malafides can be attributed to the applicant even a case for imposing cost on the applicant is not made out. In other words, delay is sufficiently explained. Delay of about 123 days stands condoned. 6. Civil Application is accordingly allowed and disposed off. No costs. S.B. DESHMUKH, J. arp/*