1. The respondents learned Counsel took a preliminary objection that no appeal lay as the order appealed against was not a judgment. We overrule the preliminary objection as we are satisfied that an order setting aside the abatement of a suit is a judgment as interpreted by the Full Bench in the case Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar 8 Ind. Cas. 340 : 35 M. 1 (1910) M.W.N. 696 : 8 M.L.T. 453 : 21 M.L.J. 1, though it may be, to use the words of the learned Chief Justice in the above case, an order on an independent proceeding "which is ancillary to the suit."

2. The respondents learned Counsel concedes that till his client (the Administrator-General of Madras) obtained Letters of Administration in March 914, his client was not the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff and that the deceaseds widow and his two sons and his other children were his legal representatives. The suit abated six months after the plaintiffs death, that is, in May 1912. The present application was made by the Administrator-General in April 1914, more than 20 months after an application to set aside the abatement became barred. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with Order XXII, Rule 9, of th