MC 2035/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. N. Dhar, learned c ounsel appearing for the respondent No.1. Perused the affidavit dated 7th March, 2011 filed in Misc. Case No.2035/2009 pra ying for striking out the name of the respondent No.3, namely, Rajkumar Dutta, f rom the list of respondents, as he has not left behind any legal heirs. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has also submitted t hat the respondent No.3 has no legal heirs. In view of the above, prayer is allowed. The name of the respondent No.3 is struck off from the list of respondents. It appears from the order dated 28th April, 2010 passed by the Lawazima that the other respondents are served. The respondent No.1 in fact has entered appearanc e through Mr. Dhar, learned counsel. Vide Misc. Case No.2037/2009, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 286 days in filing the application for substituting the name of the legal hei rs of the deceased revision petitioner, Krishna Prasad Goala. Vide Misc. Case N o.2035/2009, the applicant has prayed for substituting her name in place of the deceased revision petitioner. It has been contended in the said application that the delay has occurred becaus e the applicant, who is the widow of the revision petitioner, had no knowledge o f filing the revision petition and immediately on coming to know about the same , the necessary applications have been filed. Though no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed controverting the averments mad e in the application, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respo ndent No.1 that the delay could not be explained properly. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of t he averments made in Misc. Case No.2037/2009, I am of the view that the applican t was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the application seeking substi tution in time and hence the delay of 286 days occurred in filing the substituti on application is allowed. By application filed in Misc. Case No.2035/2009, as noticed above, the applicant prays for substitution of her name in place of the deceased revision petitioner . Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the avermen ts made in the applications, the delay occurred in filing the substitution appli cation is condoned and the prayer for substitution is allowed by setting aside a betment. The Registry is directed to amend the cause title accordingly. Misc. Cases stand disposed of.