Sufficient cause for substitution: mere ignorance of death cannot by itself set aside abatement in appeal.

Ignorance of a respondent's death, by itself, did not constitute sufficient cause to excuse failure to substitute the legal representatives within the prescribed time under Order XXII CPC. The applicant had to plead and prove facts explaining the default, and limitation for seeking setting aside abatement ran from the date of death, not from the date of knowledge. The Court held that Section 151 could not be used to bypass the consequences of abatement where no proper explanation was shown. As the appellant displayed negligence and lack of vigilance, the request to set aside abatement was refused and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether ignorance of the respondent's death by itself constituted sufficient cause for failure to bring the legal representatives on record within time and for setting aside the abatement of the appeal.

Analysis: Under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appellant must take steps within the prescribed time to substitute the legal representatives of a deceased respondent, and abatement occurs if no such step is taken. The expression sufficient cause is to be construed reasonably, but the applicant must allege and establish facts showing why the default occurred. Mere assertion that the death was not known in time is not enough. The limitation for setting aside abatement runs from the date of death, not from the date of knowledge, and the Court cannot use its inherent powers under Section 151 to bypass the consequences of abatement once the applicant fails to show sufficient cause. The applicant's conduct, the absence of a proper explanation, and the failure to seek setting aside of abatement within time showed negligence and lack of vigilance.

Conclusion: Ignorance of death by itself was not sufficient cause, and the refusal to set aside the abatement was .

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the appellant did not establish a legally sufficient explanation for the delay in substitution and for not seeking setting aside of abatement within the limitation period.

Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking substitution after the death of an opposite party must prove facts showing sufficient cause for not acting within limitation, and mere belated knowledge of death does not, by itself, justify setting aside abatement.

---