23. 24. 12.12.2018 12.12.2018 Misc. Case Nos.45/43/44 of 2018 Heard Shri S.K. Nayak, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant no.2 and Shri S.S. Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. These misc. cases have been filed by the learned counsel for respondents for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and substitution as against the deceased respondent. Perusing the averments made in the misc. cases, it appears, the respondent has died since 8.02.2000 and the documents involving the Second Appeal shows that both the respondent and appellant are of same village. The information by Shri Rao, learned Senior Advocate has been given after dismissal of the appeal as abated in the year 2011. The limitation application being filed after seven years in 2018 is not maintainable. This Court is not satisfied with the grounds taken in filing the application for substitution, setting aside abatement in 2018. As a consequence, the limitation petition vide Misc. Case no.45 of 2018 stands rejected. Consequently, the misc. case for substitution as well as setting aside abatement as against the deceased respondent vide Misc. Case no.44 of 2018 and Misc. Case No.43 of 2018 stand rejected. .…….……………..… (Biswanath Rath, J.) S.A. No.298 of 1990 Heard Shri S.K. Nayak, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant no.2 and Shri S.S. Rao, S.A. No.298 of 1990 2 Ayas learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. In view of rejection of the misc. cases for condonation of delay, substitution and setting aside abatement of the appeal as against the deceased respondent, the Second Appeal stands dismissed as abated. .…….……………..… (Biswanath Rath, J.)