ORDER
A.M. Sapre, J.
1. This is a civil revision filed by the legal representatives of one plaintiff late Gendalal and other surviving plaintiffs under Section 115 of CPC against the appellate order, dated 2-11-2000, passed by learned Ist Additional District Judge, Dhar in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 34 of 1996, which in turn arises out of an order dated 1-7-1996, passed by Additional Civil Judge, Class II, Dhar, in Civil Suit No. 14-A of 1996. Brief facts may be taken note of for the disposal of this revision.
2. One Gendalal filed a suit out of which this revision arises alongwith petitioner Nos. 2, 4 and 5 against the respondents. It was a suit for declaration of title in relation to suit land, during pendency of this suit Gendalal died on 13-11-1992. As a consequence, petitioner Nos. 1 (a), (b) and (c) claiming to be the legal representatives of late Gendalal filed an application on 26-3-1993 under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC alongwith an application for setting aside of an abatement as required under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC and for condonation of delay in filing these applications within 90 days from the date of death. A plea of illiteracy, ignorance of legal provisions applicable to such issues was pressed in service on an affidavit. It is these applications which were rejected by the learned Trial Judge holding that no case for setting aside of an abatement is made out and hence, suit stood abated in its entirety consequent upon the death of Gendalal and not taking steps within 90 days for bringing his legal representatives on record. An appeal filed by the petitioners to the District Judge having railed they have now come up in revision under Section 115 of CPC against these impugned orders.
3. Heard Shri M.L. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri G.M. Agrawal, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri A.S. Kutumble, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S.B. Shrungarpure, learned Counsel for respondents.
4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, I find substance in the revision and hence, it is allowed, resulting in setting aside of the two Courts order and restoring the suit to its file for being tried on merits in accordance with law.
5. In my opinion, both the Courts below took a very technical view in the matter while holding that no case for setting aside of an abatement is made out. It is not in dispute that Gendalal was one of the plaintiff alongwith several others. Secondly, he died on 13-11-1992 and hence, application for substitution of his legal representatives could be made on or upto 13-2-1993, i.e., within 90 days from the date of death. It was, however, made on 26-3-1993. So the delay, if at all, in making of an application for substitution was hardly one month and 13 days.
6. In my opinion, the delay was neither inordinate or deliberate. The cause stated in the application and which is taken note of supra, deserves to be believed by the Courts. It was a natural cause. The petitioners, ie., plaintiffs as also the legal representatives of late Gendalal are resident remote Village Ratangare in District Dhar. They are undoubtedly illiterates and having no idea and knowledge of any legal procedures. This was, thus, a fit case where delay in filing application for substitution should have been condoned, and abatement if any, should have been set aside. Indeed, condoning the delay advances the cause of justice because it enables the plaintiffs to prove their case on merits. It was a suit for declaration of the title to the land. It involved valuable rights. They were taken away due to such dismissal.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that application made by the legal representatives was not accompanied by Vakalatnama etc. I have not been able to appreciate such technical submissions while examining the rights of the parties on merits. These are all technical objections and do not impress the Court, nor such objections take away the substantive rights of the parties. The submission is, therefore, rejected.
8. Accordingly, and in view of aforesaid discussion, the revision succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. As a consequence, the applications made by petitioners under Order 22 Rule 3, Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC and Section 5 of Limitation Act application stands allowed. The abatement if any, it set aside. The name of late Gendalal be deleted from the cause title of plaint and the names of his legal representatives be brought on record. Let this be done within a month. The Registry to send the case file of the suit to Trial Court immediately. The Trial Court will proceed to decide the suit on merits expeditiously and preferably within a year. Parties to appear on 4-8-2003.