The trial court has the discretion to set aside an abatement and substitute the legal representative of a deceased party, even after the expiry of the prescribed period, if sufficient cause is shown.

N. Dhananjoy Singh, a person of unsound mind, filed Title Suit No. 194 of 1961 through his mother Leikho Devi as his next friend in the Court of the Munsiff, Manipur, against 11 persons on 23rd March 1961. Dhananjoy Singh having died on 13-8-1965, Leikho Devi made an application in the Court on 18-8-1965 intimating the factum of death and praying for adjournment of the suit to enable her to make an application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased on the record. The Court granted the adjournment. It was on 3-3-1966 that Leikho Devi made an application praying that she be brought on the record as the sole legal representative of her son. That application was disposed of on 17-3-1966. The substance of the order made was that the plaintiff haying died about 8 months before the application was made on 3-3-1966, the suit had abated in terms of Order 22, Rule 3(2), of the Civil P. C.On 23rd of July 1966, Leikho Devi moved another application under O. 47, R. 1, S. 151 and O. 22, R. 9 of the Code, read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying that the order dated 17-3-1966 should be quashed and she be substituted vice her son as plaintiff and permitted to proceed with the suit. This application was opposed by the defendants primarily on the footing that it was highly belated and that no sufficient cause had been disclosed on the basis of which the Court could set aside the abatement order.

2. Shri R. K. Sanatomba Singh, Munsiff No. V, Manipur, accepted the prayer of Leikho Devi by his order dated 31-5-1967 and set aside the order dated 17th of March 1966. He was of the opinion that application dated 18-8-1965 was, in fact, an application for bringing the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff on record. It was further observed in the order that that application though made within the period permitted by law had not been placed before the Court for orders.

3. The defendants filed the instant revision petition in this Court on 5-8-1967 challenging the validity of Munsiffs order dated 31-5-1967. It was submitted in the petition of revision that the order dated 31-5-1967 is perverse and one made without jurisdiction. It was alleged further that the Munsiff had misread the application dated 18-8-1965 and that the substitution of Leikho Devi could not have been directed unless the abatement had been vacated by condoning the delay in making the application dated 23-7-1966.

4. Shri Priyananda Singh, appearing for the petitioners, submitted in the first instance that the trial Court erred gravely in holding that the application dated 18-8-1965 was for bringing Leikho Devi on the record as legal representative of her deceased son, or that that application had never been placed before the Court for orders. I think this submission is well founded. A plain reading of application dated 18-8-1965 would show that no prayer was made therein for bringing Leikho Devi on the record. The only prayer made was that the case may be adjourned to another date so that an application for substitution of the deceased by his legal representatives may be filed in the Court. The order sheet of the suit reveals that on 18-8-1965 the Munsiff took note of the facts that the mother of the plaintiff had reported the latters death, and that "she wanted to move a petition for appointment of L. Rs." The Court then adjourned the ease to 30th September 1965. Thereafter, it looks, the case was transferred to another Munsiff who issued notices to the parties for appearance. It would, therefore, follow that Shri R. K. Sanatomba Singh was clearly wrong in his conclusion that the application dated 18-8-1965 was actually for bringing the representatives of the deceased on record, or that that application had never been placed before the Court for orders. I regret that the Presiding Officer of a Court should not have taken the precaution of going through the application or looking into the order sheet of the suit to ascertain the true factual situati