( 1 ) THIS order shall dispose of on application under order 22 Rules 9 and 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the applicant Amarjit Singh with a prayer to set aside the abatement, condone the delay if any, in the filing of the application and substitute the applicant in place of the deceased plaintiff in Suit No. 1021/94.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the disposal of this application, briefly stated, are that the deceased plaintiff Smt. Sheela Wanti was the mother of the applicant Amarjit Singh and respondents-defendants kuldeep Singh and Gurbachan Singh. She filed a suit for possession against the defendants alleging that the defendants were in unauthorised occupation of the first and second floor portions of property No. E-216, New rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and were not vacating the said portions inspite of requests and notice. The plaintiff died n 9. 1. 1999. On 21. 1. 1999 her counsel informed the court that the plaintiff had died and sought adjournment for seeking necessary instructions in the matter. On 20. 7. 1999 the learned Counsel for the defendants pointed out that the suit had abated as no steps had been taken for the substitution of the LRs of the deceased plaintiff. Accordingly vide order dated 20. 7. 3999 the court held that the suit had abated.

( 3 ) ON 12. 8. 1999, i. e. after about, 15 days of the abatement orders, the present applicant moved i. A. No. 0621/99 under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for permission to continue the suit and substitute his name in place of the deceased plaintiff in as much as vide a gift deed dated 23. 10. 1990 the plaintiff had gifted the suit property in his favour. It was also stated that vide orders dated 31. 5. 1999 the Landdo had mutated the property in his name. A notice of this application was issued to the defendants who filed replies opposing the prayer made by the applicant. On 22. 1. 2001 the aforesaid application i. A. 0621/99 was withdrawn with a prayer for liberty to file fresh application. The Court granted leave and liberty to the applicant and dismissed the application as withdrawn. The present application was filed on 5. 2. 2001 pleading that in view of the Gift Deed which was a registered document the applicant had become owner of suit property and such he may be substituted in place of the deceased plaintiff. It was also prayed that the abatement may be set aside and the delay, if any, may be condoned. The defendants opposed this application also pleading that the application was not maintainable and abatement could not be set aside. They disputed the gift deed in favour of the applicant.

( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents defendants. I have gone through the records of the case.

( 5 ) BEFORE adverting to the merits of the application under consideration this Court must must make it clear it clear that a substitution under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and a substitution under Rule 10 of Order 22 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stand on altogether different footing and operate in different fields. A substitution under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to bring on record the LRs of a deceased plaintiff in whose favour the right to sue survives whereas Rule 10 covers the cases in which by way of assignment, creation or devolution of interest, during the pendency of the suit, a person has acquired a right in suit property and as such prays that he may be substituted in place of plaintiff. Rule 10 of Order 22 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not prescribe any limitation for the impleadment of a person upon whom the interest in the property has devolved and as such at any time during the pendency of the suit he may be substituted. In Ghafoor Ahmad khan Vs. Bashir Ahmad khan reported in AIR 1983 SC 123, the Supreme Court set aside t