The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the rules under Order 22, CPC and the automatic abatement of the appeal in case of non-compliance with the prescribed time limits.

Arun Madan, J.-This first appeal is preferred against Judgment and decree dated 19-11-97 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, whereby plaintiffs suit for eviction was decreed.

2. Thesuit for eviction was filed on the grounds inter alia:-(1) default in payment of rent; (2) bona fide and reasonable need of the plaintiff to accommodate her son’s family; and (3) nuisance and material alteration having been caused by the tenant (defendant) by installing machines in the rented premises without obtaining permission of the plaintiff The rent of the suit premises (Rs. 650/-per month) was alleged to have been outstanding since 1-12-87.

3. In written statement, the tenant denied the aforesaid allegations of the plaintiff and contested the suit in respect of purported three grounds of eviction. After framing the issues the trial Court recorded the evidence led by both the parties and after hearing their learned Counsel the trial Court recorded its findings on all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly decreed the suit for eviction holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover outstanding rent Rs. 650/-per month w.e.f 1-12-87 till vacant possession of the’ suit premises is handed over to the landlord. Hence, this appeal A show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff-respondent. After the service of the notice was complete, Shri A.K. Bhandari, learned Counsel has filed his appearance on behalf of the plaintiff-res pendent.

.4. The matter has come up for orders on applications:-

.(i) dated 27-8-98 filed by Shri A.K. Bhandari under Order 22, Rule 10-A. CPC;

.(ii) dated 13-11-98 under Order 22, Rule 1. CPC; and

.(iii) dated 11-1-99 under Order 22, Rule 10, CPC on behalfof the defendant. Another set of two applications dated 16-2-2000 were also filed by Shri A. K. Bhandari on behalf of the respondent seeking directions from this Court inter alia:-(i) direct the tenant-appellant to deposit arrears of rent outstanding since November, 1997 with interest @ 18% p.a. and future rent in Bank Account No. 67162/183 SBBJ. SMS Highway Branch, Jaipur, and (ii) to vacate the interim stay order dated 7-2-19

5. The controversy had arisen between the parties when sole plaintiff-respondent Dheeraj Kanwar had expired on 31-7-98 during pendency of this appeal but despite the intimation about her death having been furnished on 27-8-98 as required under Order 22, Rule 10-A, CPC by the learned Counsel for the respondent, her legal representatives named in application dated 27-8-98 have neither been brought on record by the appellant by filing application within 90 days as required under Order 22, Rule 4, CPC nor they have been made a party within the statutory period of 90 days prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act.

6. During the course of hearing on aforesaid applications, Shri A.K. Bhandart, learned Counsel representing the respondent at the very outset raised preliminary objection that though an intimation as per Order 22, Rule 10-A. CPC was duly furnished about death of respondent which took place on 31 -7-98, but the appellant despite having knowledge about her death as he was admittedly residing in the rented premises where the respondent had died, yet application for bringing her legal representatives on record was filed on 13-11-98 under Order 22. Rule 1, CPC much after expiry of limitation prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act. Notwithstanding the appeal having automatically abated upon expiry of 90 days from the death of respondent as envisaged under Order 22, Rule 4(3), CPC. Moreover, application for setting aside abatement of appeal has been filed by the appellant on 11-1-99 under Order 22, Rule 10, CPC, that too much after 60 days prescribed under Article 121 of the Limitation Act and without seeking condonation of delay under Sections 5 of the Limitation Act, inasmuch as no sufficient cause has been assigned for setting aside the abatement in application under Order 22, Rule 1