MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.----Mst. Sakina Bibi filed this regular first appeal against the respondents, Sher Khan and others. One of the respondents in the appeal was Alam Khan. He died on 28th June, 1970 but a petition, under Order XXII, rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, for bringing his legal representatives on the record was made by the appellant on 24th June, 1971, i. e., after more than one year. It was after about eleven years of the making of the said petition that the appellant also submitted a petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for condonation of delay in the making of the former petition. Delay in the making of petition for bringing on record the legal representatives of Alam. Khan was explained by the appellant by stating that although she and Alam Khan lived in the same village but before the death of Alain Khan she had left that village and bad gone to the village of her niece as she was ill and wanted to have medical treatment in the village of her niece. Therefore, according to the appellant, she could not come to know of the death of Alam Khan. It was stated by her that as soon as she became aware of his death she submitted the aforesaid petition for bringing his legal representatives on the record. This very explanation appears in the affidavit filed by her. As against this, Ashiq Hussain, who is one of the respondents in this case, has filed an affidavit refuting all what has been stated by the appellant in her affidavit.
2. It was urged by learned counsel for the surviving respondents that the appeal had abated because petition for impleading legal representatives of Alam Khan was not made in time. As for petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the plea raised by him was that the said petition was not competent.
3. In reply, it was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to the petition in question and that since the delay had been explained by the appellant it was a fit case for the condonation thereof. Alternatively, it was submitted by him that the abatement may be set aside for the reasons stated by the appellant.
4. Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have been applicable to a petition under Order XXII, rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure if there had been any provisions in the said Code making section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to the aforesaid petition. There is no such provision in the Code.
Therefore, we agree with the learned counsel for the surviving respondents that the appellant could not invoke the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act for seeking condonation of delay in the making of application for impleading the legal representatives of Alam Khan respondent.
5. Admittedly, the said petition was made beyond the period of limita--tion. It would, therefore, follow that the appeal had abated on the running out of that period.
6. Now, we will proceed to examine if there are circumstances justify--ing the setting aside of abatement. The explanation given by the appellant for about one year's delay in making of the petition under Order XXII, rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, is that as she was ailing she had left the village where Alam Khan had died and had gone to the village of her niece for getting medical treatment. There is nothing to support her plea except her affidavit which stands rebutted by the affidavit furnished by Ashiq Hussain respondent. As indicated above, the affidavit of the appellant was put in after eleven years of the snaking of the petition in question. There is no certificate by any doctor or Hakeem to the effect that he had been giving treatment to the appellant in the village of her niece. There is no affidavit of her niece or any one else supporting her averment relating to her shifting to the village of her niece. We feel that the explanation offered by the appellant is all fishy and made up. We are, therefore, not inclined to set aside the abatement of the appeal.
7. Resultantly, we hold that the appeal stands abated. For the reasons given above, its abatement is also not set aside. And that is the end of the matter.
M.Y.M. Appeal abated.