Heard Mr. S.K. Saharia, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S.S. Sharma, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, counsel for the respondents.

2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed (i) order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the learned Munsiff, North Salmara, Abhayapuri, thereby dismissing T.S. No. 34/2000 on abatement; (ii) order dated 26.07.2016 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 4/2016, arising out of T.S. No. 34/2000, thereby refusing to condone the delay in filing the petition under the provisions of Order XXII Rule 9(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, and (iii) order dated 27.07.2016, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 5/2016, arising out of T.S. No. 34/2000, thereby rejecting the petition filed under the provisions of Order XXII Rule 9(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside abatement.

3. The case projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are the plaintiffs in T.S. No. 34/2000, which was being tried by the learned Court of Munsiff, North Salmara, Abhayapuri, Dist. Bongaigaon. The said suit was for declaration that the decree passed in T.S. No. 21/1993 was fraudulent, illegal and void, for permanent injunction, for cost, etc. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, namely, Lakhi Kanta Choudhury was the sole defendant in the said suit and he contested the suit by filing his written statement. It was stated that in course of the trial, the petitioners had preferred a revision before this Court, being CRP No. (I/O) No. 119/13, which was disposed-of by order dated 09.09.2015, and pursuant to the said order, the trial proceeded again, and the next date of the suit was fixed on 17.10.2015.

4. It was submitted that on 17.10.2015, the Counsel for the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent filed a petition before the learned Trial Court, informing about the death of the sole defendant in the suit. The Presiding Officer was on leave and, as such, the case was fixed on 30.11.2015 for necessary orders. On 30.11.2015, the petitioners sought for an adjournment on the ground that the names and addresses of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant could not be collected. However, the learned Trial Court, by passing an order dated 30.11.2015, dismissed the suit on abatement.

5. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the following petitions, (i) petition under Order XXII Rule 9(2) of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside abatement, which was numbered as Misc.(J) Case No. 5/2016; (ii) petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in filing the petition for setting aside abatement, which was numbered as Misc.(J) Case No. 4/2016; and (iii) petition under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code for substitution of legal representatives of the deceased defendant. The respondents herein on appearance contested the said applications. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the said learned court was pleased to pass the orders dated 26.07.2016 and 27.07.2016, referred to above.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners have strongly submitted that the information about the death of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent was given to the learned Trial Court only on 17.10.2016, but the learned court did not give any formal notice to the petitioners as contemplated under the provisions of Order XXII Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure. It is also submitted that the sole defendant had died on 15.08.2015, but the information about his death was given only on 17.10.2015, for which the suit was erroneously dismissed, as the period of limitation for substituting the legal representatives of the deceased had not lapsed. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court had taken a hyper-technical view of the law of limitation and committed illegality in dismissing the petition for condoning the delay by holding that the exact amount of delay