Good-faith pursuit of a mistaken remedy may justify delay condonation, and abatement relief can cover substitution failures.

Reasonable diligence and good faith in pursuing a mistaken procedural remedy may amount to sufficient cause under the Limitation Act, so time spent in review proceedings can justify condonation of delay where the appeal is otherwise within the ordinary limitation period. The text also states that the power to remove abatement under the Civil Procedure Code, 1882 extends to abatement arising from failure to substitute parties on the death of a defendant as well as a plaintiff. On the facts noted, the ex parte abatement order was criticised as unjustified, and the order setting aside abatement was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the time spent in prosecuting a review application could be excluded or treated as sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing the appeal under the Limitation Act; (ii) Whether an abatement order based on failure to substitute parties under the Civil Procedure Code, 1882 could be set aside under the provision for removing abatement, including where the failure related to a deceased defendant.

Issue (i): Whether the time spent in prosecuting a review application could be excluded or treated as sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing the appeal under the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The applicable principle was that the discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be exercised judicially on the basis of sufficient cause and reasonable diligence. The prosecution of a mistaken remedy in good faith, especially where the time spent falls within the ordinary appeal period after deducting the period occupied by the review proceedings, may constitute sufficient cause. The Court treated the long-established Indian practice, supported by prior Full Bench authority, as furnishing the governing rule and declined to disturb it.

Conclusion: The delay was properly excused, and the appeal should not have been rejected as time-barred.

Issue (ii): Whether an abatement order based on failure to substitute parties under the Civil Procedure Code, 1882 could be set aside under the provision for removing abatement, including where the failure related to a deceased defendant.

Analysis: The Court held that the provision allowing a suit to proceed after abatement was wide enough to cover abatement arising under the chapter dealing with death of a defendant as well as death of a plaintiff. Abatement under Section 371 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882 was not confined to one kind of omission, because the chapter dealt with abatement generally. The ex parte nature of the original abatement order was also criticised as indefensible, and the absence of the deceased defendant's representatives furnished no valid ground for abatement in the circumstances found.

Conclusion: The order setting aside the abatement was sustained, and the original abatement order was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded in having the time-bar objection rejected and the abatement order set aside, with the matter remitted for hearing on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A litigant acting with reasonable diligence and in good faith in pursuing an incorrect but bona fide procedural remedy may, in proper circumstances, obtain relief against limitation under Section 5, and the power to remove abatement extends to abatement under the chapter generally rather than being confined to a single category of substitution failure.

---