Substitution delay may be condoned to prevent miscarriage of justice, allowing legal representatives to come on record on merits.

Procedural rules should advance justice rather than defeat it, and a lapse in complying with substitution requirements may be overlooked where necessary to avoid miscarriage of justice. In a partition suit, the deceased respondent's heirs sought impleadment, and the Court treated the delay and negligence in moving the substitution application as not decisive in the circumstances. The abatement was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the legal representatives were directed to be brought on record so the appeal could be decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the abatement of the appeal should be set aside and the legal representatives of the deceased respondent brought on record despite delay and negligence in moving the substitution application.

Analysis: The appeal arose from a partition suit and the deceased respondent's heirs themselves sought to be impleaded. The Court held that procedural rules are meant to advance justice and that, in appropriate cases, a mere lapse in following procedure may be overlooked to prevent miscarriage of justice. While recognising that the appellants were negligent and that the High Court's criticism of their delay was justified, the Court found that the circumstances warranted setting aside the abatement and allowing substitution so that the matter could be decided on merits.

Conclusion: The abatement was set aside and the legal representatives of the deceased respondent were ordered to be substituted on record after condoning the delay.

---