K. Kalyanasundaram, J.

1. This revision arises out of the order passed by the XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A. No. 107 of 2014 in O.S. No. 6592 of 2013. The petitioners originally instituted a suit in C.S. No. 1077 of 1992 before the original side of this Court against the respondent for declaration and for permanent injunction. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and re-numbered as O.S. No. 6592 of 2013. In the suit, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 107 of 2014 under Order 22 Rule 4(1) of CPC to record the respondents 9, 10 and 22 and bring the 35th respondent on record as the legal representatives of the deceased V.K. Arumugham.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is averred that the second plaintiff S. Saraswathi Ammal died and the applicants 3 to 8 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the second plaintiff and the applicants 9 to 11 were brought on record as Legal representatives of the third plaintiff. It is further stated that very recently, they came to know that the third defendant in the above suit also died leaving behind his wife, two daughters and a son who are the respondents 9, 10, 22 and 35 respectively. Since the respondents 9, 10 and 22 were already on record, the suit was not abated with respect to the deceased third respondent in the above suit.

3. The application was opposed by the respondent stating that the application is barred by limitation, that the applicants were aware of the death of the third defendant and the applicants ought to have moved the applications to condone the delay in filing imp leading petition to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record. On those grounds, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. The learned Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai allowed the application in part recording the respondents 9, 10 and 22 as the legal heirs of the deceased third defendant, but rejected the petition to bring the proposed 35th respondent on record as the legal representative of the deceased 3rd defendant in the suit. Aggrieved by the order, the present revision is filed.

5. Shri S. Subbiah, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons assigned by the trial court for the dismissal of the application that it was filed beyond the period of 90 days from the date of death of the third defendant and the petitioners have not filed the application under Section 5 of the limitation act to condone the delay cannot be sustained in law. The learned counsel would submit that since the respondents 8, 9 and 21 were already on record and the suit will not get abated on the death of the third defendant and once there is no abatement in the suit, the petitioners need not take out an application to condone delay. It is further submitted that Rule 10(a) of Order 22 mandates the pleader appearing for a party to inform the court about the death of that party and the court shall, thereupon give notice of such death to the other party and for that purpose, the contract between the pleader and the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the respondents themselves were not sure about the date of death of the third defendant and that is why, in the counter, the respondents did not give the date of death and subsequently included in the counter; that the same counsel was appearing for the third defendant and for his wife and daughters and therefore, it is the duty of the counsel to inform the death to the court, as per Order 22 Rule 10(a) of CPC. It is further contended that the defendants are living in different place and it cannot be the duty of the plaintiff to go and verify personally the existence of the defendants till the trial is concluded and to get over the above situation, the legislature has thought it fit to introduce Rule 10(a) in Order 22 casting a duty on the counsel to i