S.N. Modi, J.
1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for declaration arid mandatory injunction.
2. It is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail Suffice it to say that the appellant Chhitarmal and respondent No. 3 Kanhiya Lal filed a suit is the court of Munsif, Laxmangarh (District Alwar) for declaration and mandatory injunction against Sbeo Narain. One Bhagwan Sahai was also impleaded as proforma defendant. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit on 26th April, 1965. The plaintiff appellant preferred an appeal but the some was dismissed by the learned Sanior Civil Judge Alwar on 7tb April, 1967. Hence this second appeal.
2. This case came up for hearing before this Court On. 15 10 1975. On that day Laxmi Narain son of defendant Sheo Narain moved an application that Sheo Narain had died about three years ago and since no legal representatives of Sbeo Narain had died about three years ago and since no legal representatives of Sheo Narain were brought on record, the appeal was liable to be dismissed as having abated. Laxmi Narain subsequently filed on affidavit wherein he mentioned that his father Sheo Narain died in the month of July, 1971. On. 2510 75 an application for setting aside the abatement was moved by Chhitarmal under the provisions of Rule 4 and 9 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Along with this application another application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay. It is the common ground between the parties that if the delay is not condoned, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as having abated.
4. The only ground which the appellant mentioned in his application for condonation of delay was that he being a villager and a simple man never knew that the legal representatives of the deceased respondent have to be brought on record within 90 days. In other words, the appellant wants this Courts to give him benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation. Act on account of his ignorance of law. The question that arises is other the ignorance of law on the part of a party is a sufficient reason for extending the period of limitation It has beers bed in I.L.R. (1954) 4, Rajasthan page 351 that delay cannot be excused under Section 5 of the Limitation Act merely on the plea of ignorance of law. Such a plea cannot have good basis to condone the breach of law. This is a Division Bench decision of this Court and is binding on me.
5. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed with the result that the appeal also fails as having abated. In the circumstances of the case I leave the parties to Dear their own costs of this Court.