1 Csa464/1997 Budhi Prakash Vs. Ballabh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.464 of 1997. Budhi Prakash son of Shri Durga Shanker VERSUS Ballabh son of Shri Badri Lal Date of Order :::: 17/07/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. S.M. Mehta, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. D.S. Poonia, Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellant Mr. Vinod Kumar Tamoliya, Advocate for Mr. N.K. Maloo, Counsel for the Defendant-Respondent By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The matter comes up on the application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. for substitution of the legal representatives of the plaintiff-appellant Budhi Prakash, who died during the pendency of the appeal on 06.10.2008. The said application has been submitted beyond the period prescribed of 90-days on 03.03.2009. Though there is no application for setting aside the abatement, which has taken place by operation of law. 2 Csa464/1997 Budhi Prakash Vs. Ballabh An application under Section 5 of the Limitation has been filed. So far as the contents of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are concerned, what has been stated in Para 2 of the application is that when the legal representatives of the appellant contacted their counsel on telephone, they informed the counsel that the appellant had died. Learned counsel, then advised them that an application for substitution of the LRs is required to be filed and as such this application is being filed and the delay may be condoned. Learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant contended that the delay is bona-fide as the legal representatives were not aware that an application for substitution of the LRs is required to be filed on the death of the appellant. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and I find that sum and substance of the contention is that the legal representatives were ignorant about the law, which requires substitution of the legal representatives. So far as the aforesaid submission is concerned, it is contrary to established principles that the ignorance of law is no excuse. This can not be sufficient cause. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, there being no sufficient cause for not having 3 Csa464/1997 Budhi Prakash Vs. Ballabh moved the application within time. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be dismissed. In view of the above since the application for substitution has been filed beyond the period of limitation and there being no sufficient cause for setting aside the abatement, which has taken place by operation of law on account of not having moved the application within time. The appeal stands dismissed as having abated. Consequently, the second appeal as well as both the applications under Order 22 Rule 3 and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stand dismissed. (Dalip Singh) J. ashok/ 4 Csa464/1997 Budhi Prakash Vs. Ballabh