Short Note : 1. The non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit against Badri, Manika and Chahati for possession of land and mesne profits. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant filed an appeal. During the pendency of the first appeal, defendants Badri and Chahati died. Applications for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendants were filed. The application for the legal representatives of Chahati was found within limitation and therefore it was allowed and they were brought on record. However, the application for the legal representatives of defendant Badri was dismissed as barred by limitation. The whole appeal was dismissed as abated. Second Appeal No. 149 of 1972 against the order of abatement was pending. It appears that the defendants and the legal representatives of the deceased filed an application under Order 22, rule 9 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the abatement order by which the first appeal was dismissed and it was further prayed that the appeal be restored for re-hearing. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application. Held: Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, this Court is of opinion, that the application must be dismissed. The short reasons are that the appeal was dismissed as abated and the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of Badri were dismissed as time-barred. This was based on the evidence, which was adduced on record by both the parties. The defendants by filing another application sought restoration of the appeal after setting aside the abatement order on the same ground, on which the whole appeal was dismissed as abated. Secondly it is an admitted fact that second appeal is pending against the dismissal of the appeal as abated. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court has not committed any illegality or material irregularity to warrant in setting aside of the impugned order Revision dismissed.