Liberal construction of sufficient cause supports substitution and setting aside abatement when death was not intimated.

Delay in seeking substitution and setting aside abatement may be condoned where the appellant shows sufficient cause, the respondent's death was not intimated, and the explanation is bona fide. Under Order 22 of the CPC, abatement occurs by operation of law, but restoration remains available on a liberal and pragmatic reading of "sufficient cause" under the Limitation Act, especially where substantial justice would otherwise be defeated. A long-pending appeal without fixed hearing dates, coupled with the absence of notice of death and no material contradicting the appellant's asserted ignorance, supports setting aside abatement and bringing the legal representatives on record.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the applications to set aside the abatement and to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record should be condoned, and whether the abatement should be set aside.

Analysis: The period for substitution and for setting aside abatement under the Limitation Act had expired, but the governing scheme of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure treats abatement as occurring by operation of law and permits restoration on proof of sufficient cause. The expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act must receive a liberal and pragmatic construction, particularly in applications for setting aside abatement, where the court balances the accrued right of the opposite side against the need to advance substantial justice. Where an appeal remains pending without fixed hearing dates for a long period in the High Court, the appellant is not expected to make periodic enquiries about the life or death of the respondent. The duty to inform the court under Order 22 Rule 10A, the absence of notice to the appellant, the appellant's asserted ignorance of death, and the lack of material contradicting that assertion are material circumstances supporting condonation.

Conclusion: The delay was satisfactorily explained, the abatement ought to have been set aside, and the legal representatives were liable to be brought on record.

Ratio Decidendi: In a pending appeal, delay in substitution and in seeking to set aside abatement should be condoned where the appellant was unaware of the respondent's death, no notice of death was given, and the explanation is bona fide and consistent with substantial justice.

---