Condonation of delay and setting aside abatement may be granted for substantial justice despite improper explanations of fact.

The applicants filed a Second Appeal which was dismissed as abated on February 7, 2023, because they failed to implead the legal representatives (LRs) of Respondent No. 7, Manak Chand, who died on February 20, 2021

Although a death certificate and memorandum of information regarding the death were filed on September 17, 2021, no substitution application was filed for over seventeen months

The applicants filed the present M.C.C. on May 9, 2023, seeking to condone the delay and set aside the abatement, claiming they were unaware of the death or the names of the LRs due to a "communication gap" with their previous counsel

The respondents opposed the application, presenting evidence (Annexures D-1 and D-2) that the applicants had already substituted the same LRs in revenue court proceedings in 2022, suggesting the applicants provided false reasons for the delay

1. Whether the delay in filing the application for setting aside the abatement should be condoned despite the allegation of false averments regarding the applicants' knowledge of the legal representatives

2. Whether the lack of communication between the counsel and the party constitutes sufficient cause to set aside the abatement in the interest of justice

The court examined the principles governing the condonation of delay and setting aside of abatement under the Limitation Act and the Code of Civil Procedure.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh and others (AIR 2010 SC 3043), which held that vague averments or a lack of justifiable reasons regarding the knowledge of the pendency of an appeal or death of a party should generally lead to the rejection of such applications

The Court noted a discrepancy in the applicants' arguments: while they claimed ignorance of the LRs' names until April 2023, the revenue records proved they knew these details in 2022

The Court observed that the Second Appeal had not been listed regularly after the death information was filed in 2021, and it was eventually dismissed in the absence of the counsel

The Court focused on the latter part of the applicants' plea—that their previous counsel failed to inform them of the memorandum of information or the subsequent dismissal

Despite finding the applicants’ excuse regarding the names of the LRs to be "improper and incorrect," the Court determined that the primary delay in approaching the High Court (from April to May 2023) was explained by the discovery of the dismissal

Balancing the technical lapses against the "interest of justice," the Court decided not to dismiss the application solely on the grounds of the incorrect statements regarding the LRs' names

The Second Appeal was restored to its original number, and the applicants were directed to carry out the substitution of the legal representatives within 15 days

The Court’s holding emphasizes that while false affidavits are discouraged, the procedural right to a hearing on merits may prevail in the interest of justice if the delay is otherwise sufficiently explained