1. This application is directed against the order dated 28th Dec. 1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court; Bhagalpur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 12 of 1975. By the impugned order the learned Additional District, Judge has affirmed the order of the trial court by which the prayer of the petitioner to be substituted after setting aside abatement had been rejected on the concurrent finding that the petitioner had not been able to show sufficient cause for not filing an application within the time allowed by law.

2. The only relevant facts worth noticing for the decision of this case are these. Title Suit No. 35 of 1969 was instituted by one Narsingh Lal in the court of the Munsif, Bhagalpur. At the outset I may state that the aforesaid Narsing Lal was none else than the own uncle of the present petitioner. In the suit the relief claimed was for setting aside an ex parte decree for arrears of taxes regarding Holding No. 5, Circle No. 14, Ward No. 18 of Mohalla Mirjan Hat within the municipal limits of Bhagalpur Municipality. The decree had been obtained by the Bhagalpur Municipality. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner claims to have purchased the holding in question under a registered sale deed dated 8th August, 1970 from the original plaintiff Narsingh Lal. It is the further case of the petitioner that he came to know about the institution of such a suit on 23rd August, 1971. In the meantime according to the petitioners own case, Narsingh Lal aforesaid died sometime in February, 1971, whereas according to the case of the contesting opposite parties, he had died on 3rd November, 1970. Be that as it may, this difference in the date of death, according to the stand taken by the respective parties, makes no material difference in so far as the point which falls for consideration in this case is concerned. On 25th Aug. 1971, the petitioner filed an application for his substitution in the place of Narsingh Lal after setting aside abatement. That application was to the first instance rejected by the trial court. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 73 of 1971 in the court of the learned District Judge. That appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the trial court for disposal of the petitioners application dated 23rd Aug. 1971 on merits after going into evidence with regard to the date of knowledge and also for finding out as to whether sufficient cause had been shown for not filing the application for substitution in time. After remand, the trial court held the substitution matter and by order dated 25th Feb. 1975 the petitioners application for setting aside abatement was rejected. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, as already mentioned above, being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 12 of 1975, in which the impugned order dated 20th December, 1975 was passed.

3. Both the courts below, on a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties concerned, have categorically found that the petitioners story about the date of his knowledge regarding the institution of the suit by Narsingh Lal aforesaid was not true. That being purely a question of fact could not have been, and was very fairly not gone into by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. In this application the only point that was raised by Mr. K.K, Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that in view of the provisions of O.22, R.10 of the Civil P. C. the petitioner being an assignee of the interest of the original plaintiff, ought to have been permitted to continue the suit instituted by Narsingh Lal since there was no period of limitation for an application under Order 22, Rule 10 of Civil P.C. There is no doubt that if it is a case which can be said to be covered by the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 there will be no question of limitation nor would it require going into any evidence with regard to the sufficiency of the cause shown. But, in my view, the argument of Mr. Sinha