As per case facts, the original defendant died, and an application for substitution of legal representatives was filed almost a year later without a separate application for condonation of delay ... under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The trial Court rejected this application, deeming it time-barred and dismissing the suit as abated. However, the appellate Court set aside this order and allowed the substitution. The question arose whether an application for substitution, filed beyond the limitation period and without an explicit prayer to set aside abatement or condone delay, should be allowed, especially considering that the suit proceedings were previously stayed and the parties were related. Finally, the Court found no error in the appellate court's decision to set aside the abatement and allow substitution, emphasizing that a prayer for substitution implicitly includes a prayer to condone delay and set aside abatement in the interest of justice. The Court also clarified that such an application should be dealt with within the main suit itself, not as a separate miscellaneous judicial case, especially given the history of the suit being stayed.