Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Thisrevision petition is against the order dated 3-12-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 150/89 by which the trial Court allowed the application submitted by the defendant under Order 22, Rule 4(3) CPC and held that the suit of the plaintiff has abated.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for specific perforrnance of the contract on 1-5-1985 against the four defendants, namely, Virendra Singh, his wife Ramnik Kurnari and son Harendra Singh. Defendant No. 1 Virendra Singh expired on 28-8-1991, upon which the plaintiff submitted an application under Order 22 CPC without mentioning the relevant rule, but obviously it is Rule 4 of the Order 22 CPC with a prayer that the defendants Nos. 2 to 4, who are already party in the suit in their personal capacity, rnay be taken on record in the capacity of the legal representatives of defendant No. 1 also. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 27-11-1995 on the ground that the application has been filed after delay.

4. It appears frorn the facts that before the