ORDER :

1. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(K) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been filed against the order dated 14.01.2015 passed in M.J.C.No.13/2014 by the Second Additional District Judge, Sidhi dismissing the Regular Civil Appeal No. 185A/2014 in the effect of abatement, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2005 passed in C.S. No.242A/2003 by the Second Civil Judge, Class II, Sidhi.

2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Ram Pratap Singh filed Civil Suit for declaration, possession and for the mesne profits in respect of land bearing old khasra Nos. 808,809,810,811,812,813,814,815,816 and 819 and new khasra Nos. 794,796,797, 798, 799,805,808,809,812,795 and 795/12 situated at village - Panwar Chouhanan Tola, 55/45 Tehsil – Gopadbanas, District Sidhi.

3. Vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2005 the trial Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class II, the plaintiffs/appellants filed miscellaneous appeal before the Second Additional District Judge, Sidhi. During the pendency of the appeal, defendant No.1 Dwarika Prasad died and, therefore, legal representatives of respondent No.1 were brought on record as respondents No. 1 to 1(f).

4. Plaintiff No.2 Rajbahoran Singh also died during the pendency of the appeal before the first appellate Court on 27.03.2008 in his native place and on this account, on 28.11.2008 the respondent/defendant submitted an application to the effect that appeal be abated against plaintiff No.2. The counsel for the plaintiffs informed about the same through one Vishwanath Dhobi. On coming to know about the same, the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff contacted the counsel and filed and application under Order 22, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. on 13.01.2009 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for setting aside the effect of abatement in the appeal in which proceedings under Rule 372 of the Miscellaneous Civil Case were registered as MJC No. 13/2014 to initiate proceedings under Order 22 Rule 9(2) of C.P.C. A copy of the aforesaid applications are annexed herewith as Annexures A/1 and A/2.

5. The respondents/defendants filed their reply disputing the case of the appellants/plaintiffs and contended that application filed by the plaintiffs for condonation of delay is not supported by sufficient reason. Hence, the appeal be dismissed as abated.

6. The learned Court below vide impugned order dated 14.01.2015 rejected the application filed under Order 22, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. and also dismissed the application filed under Order 5 of the Limitation Act and dismissed the appeal as abated.

7. Being aggrieved by order dated 14.01.2015, the appellants/plaintiffs filed this miscellaneous appeal on the ground that the Court below over-looked the provision of law in rejecting the application filed under Order 22, Rule 9 of C.P.C. along with application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is well settled in law that that the Court should not have taken a technical view in rejecting the case in very ordinary manner. The object of law is to adjudicate the issues on merits and not in ordinary manner. Plaintiff No.2 Rajbahoran Singh died on 27.03.2008 and on coming to know through their neighbour about the application for abatement of appeal filed by the opposite party, the legal heirs of plaintiff No.2 filed application on 13.01.2009 for setting aside abatement of appeal. The Court below committed a substantial error in dismissing the entire appeal in the effect of abatement of appellant/plaintiff No.2 Rajbahoran Singh. In view of the aforesaid grounds, plaintiffs pray for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.01.2015 in MJC No. 13/2014 and R.C.A. No. 185A/2014.

8. None present on behalf of respondents, even though served.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

10. It is true that if legal representatives of deceased appellant are not brought on r