MC 4542/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Heard Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sarma, learne d counsel for the respondents. The petitioner, by the present application, is praying for condonation of delay of 1056 days in filing the application seeking substitution of the legal heirs o f the deceased respondent No. 1. According to the petitioner, his counsel came to know about the death of the res pondent No. 1 on 22.8.2007 when the learned counsel appearing for the respondent informed him about the death of the respondent No. 1. It is also the case of th e petitioner that thereafter the learned counsel informed the petitioner to coll ect the names of the legal heirs of the respondent No. 1 and to file the applica tion for substitution. The petitioner thereafter somehow collected the names of the legal heirs of respondent No. 1 on 15.12.2007 and supplied such information to the learned counsel on 16.12.2007 and thereafter the substitution application has been filed on 20.12.2007. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents it has been contended th at the appellant attended the Janaja of the respondent No. 1. It has also been s tated in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner could not explain the reason for the period from 29.1.2005 to 22.8.2007. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner it has been stated that he was under the impression that the original appellant had filed the application, aft er whose death the petitioner has been substituted. It the admitted position of fact that the parties are rustic villagers. Though t here is no satisfactory explanation from 29.1.2005 to 22.8.2007 except to the ef fect that the petitioner was under the belief that his deceased father had filed such application, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the parties are rustic villagers who may not know about the requirement of filing the application for s ubstitution unless they are informed about the same by the learned counsel. The application filed by the petitioner discloses that he was informed by the learne d counsel only after 22.8.2007 after receipt of the information relating to the death of respondent No.1 from the learned counsel appearing for the said respond ent. That being the position, I am of the view that the petitioner was prevented by s ufficient cause in not filing the application seeking substitution in time. Henc e the delay occurred in filing the substitution application is condoned. Misc. case stands allowed.