SA No.274 OF 1988 11.08.2017 Misc. Case Nos. 197 and 198 of 2015 16. This appeal has been filed on 14.10.1988 challenging the judgm ent and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Khurda (as then, it was) in Title Appe al No. 5 of 1987 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif (as then, it was) in O.S. No. 79 of 1983 dismissing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff. Thus, the unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts below i.e. trial c ourt as well as first appellate court is the appellant hereinbefore this Court in this Second appeal. The appeal has been admitted framing the substantial question of law by the order dated 29.3.89. The sole appellant having died on 4.11.1994, the petition by his l egal representative so as to be substituted in his place had been filed way back in the year 1 995 giving rise to Misc. Case No. 597 of 1995. The said petition under Misc. Case No. 597 of 1995 stood dismissed by order dated 21.10.1997. On 14.1.2011 when the second appeal got listed again, the attention o f this Court being drawn to the earlier order dated 21.10.1997, it was noted that hearing of t he appeal cannot be made unless the said order dated 21.10.1997 is recalled and the legal repr esentation of the appellant are substituted after setting aside the abatement and condoning th e delay. In view of the above, although no specific order has been passed dismi ssing the appeal as to have abated, in fact after the order passed on 21.10.1997 the appeal st ood abated and it ought not to have remained onboard standing dismissed by operation of law. Be that as it may, as the appeal was still shown alive as per the reco rd though it had no survival as per law, the legal representative of the deceased appellant ha ve filed an application on 25.8.2015 for his substitution in place of sole appellant (Misc. Ca se No. 196 of 2015) along with the application for setting aside the abatement (Misc. Case No. 198 of 2015) and for condondation of delay in filing the said petition (Misc. Case No. 197 of 2015). 2. Heard learned counsel for the legal representative of appellant, learn ed counsel for the respondent no. 1 and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. Perused the petitions giving rise to the above noted Misc. Cases. 3. Fact remains that in view of order dated 21.10.1997 the appeal has sto od abated as per law after expiry of 5.11.1994 for non-substitution of the legal representativ e of sole appellant and now the move has been made for substitution of the legal representativ e of deceased appellant after lapse of more than two and half decades. 4. It is stated that the learned counsel who was appearing on behalf of t he legal representative of the appellant had not taken proper steps in the matter and he had n ot also given any information to the legal representative of the appellant with regard to the dismissal of the petition for substitution. Therefore, it is stated that the delay in filing t he application afresh has not occasioned for the negligence on the part of the legal represent ative of the appellant and it is also not intentional. In view of the fact that the legal repr esentative of the appellant had filed the application in the year 1995 which stood dismissed i n the year 1997, without stating that he had ever thereafter made any attempt even to take inf ormation with regard to the development of the appeal or about its process and by merely sayin g that the counsel who was appearing on his behalf did not take proper step and did not inform him about the development do not suffice for acceptance of the explanation for the purpose of condonation such long delay of two and half decade. Those are not at all acceptable on their face value. Its true that the courts should have liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay in filing the petition for setting aside the abatement and in the settin g aside abatement, but the said approach is not permissible in case of such long delay of more than two and half decades at the cost of the right accrued in favour of the adversary as also in favour of other third party not within the arena of the litigation, being not altogether r uled out. The conduct of the legal representative of the appellant appears to be wholly unpard onable and gross negligence has to be attributed to him. In view of the aforesaid, I find that there exists no such cause, much less to say sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the petition for setting asid e the abatement. In the result, Misc. Case No. 197 of 2015 and Misc. Case No. 198 of 20 15 stand dismissed. .. D. Dash, J. 17. 11.8.2017 Misc. Case No. 196 of 2015 In view of the order of dismissal of Misc. Case No. 197 of 2015 and Mi sc. Case No. 198 of 2015, this Misc. case also stands dismissed having no such survival in the eye of law. .. D. Dash, J. 18. 11.8.2017 SA No. 274 of 1988 In view of the orders passed in the above Misc. Cases, the appeal stan ds dismissed as to have abated since long. .. D. Dash, J. 19. 11.8.2017 Misc. Case No. 132 of 2017 In view of the dismissal of the SA, the Misc. Case filed for stay of f urther proceeding of Ex. Case No. 17 of 2015 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge, Seni or Division, Khurda is dismissed as infructuous. .. D. Dash, J. Aks 1