https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168182 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. en-us Tue, 30 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:50:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168182 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168182