Judgment 1. The plaintiff appellant has in this appeal challenged the order dated 14-11-1973 passed by the Court below rejecting the plaintiffs application for substitution and holding that the suit has abated in its entirety. 2. The suit was filed in 1966 for declaration of the plaintiffs title and recovery of possession in regard to certain properties and was decreed ex parte on 7-4-1971. The defendant No. 1 thereafter died on 18-4-1971 and two applications under O.9, R.13, Civil P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree were filed, one by the heirs of defendant No. 1 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 9 of 1971 and another by the other defendants which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 8 of 1971. On the 25th Aug., 1972, Misc. Case No. 8 of 1971 was allowed and the title suit was restored subject to payment of costs. On the 4th Sept., 1972, it was mentioned in the order-sheet that cost as directed was deposited and the suit was formally restored. Misc. Case No. 9 of 1971 filed by the heirs of deceased defendant No. 1 was taken up for hearing on 5-3-1973 when the applicants filed an application stating that since the suit had been restored, their miscellaneous application had become infructuous and should be dismissed as such. The prayer was allowed and Misc. Case No. 9 of 1971 was accordingly dismissed. The names of the applicants in Misc. Case No. 9 of 1971, that is, the heirs of the defendant No. 1, were not formally entered in the plaint and the name of defendant No. 1 continued as before. On the 24th March 1973, the plaintiff filed an application praying for expunging the name of defendant No. 1 and adding his heirs as parties in the plaint. It is said in para 4 of the application that the persons sought to be mentioned in the plaint had already been substituted. 3. The defendants opposed the application on the ground that the plaintiff was under a duty to substitute the heirs of the deceased defendant immediately after restoration of the suit. 4. The Court below has by the impugned order held that the suit has abated. The Court has observed that a proceeding under O.9, R.13, Civil P.C. is not in continuation of the suit and is not a stage in the suit. 4. The Court below has by the impugned order held that the suit has abated. The Court has observed that a proceeding under O.9, R.13, Civil P.C. is not in continuation of the suit and is not a stage in the suit. In that view, the substitution of the heirs made in the miscellaneous case does not amount to a substitution in the suit itself. It has further been held that the provisions of O.22 including the provision of abatement of a suit applied to the present case. 5. The question which arises in this case is as to whether the provisions of O.22 in regard to the abatement can be applied to the present case. From the very language used in the different rules of O.22, it is manifest that the question of abatement of a suit arise only if a suit is pending. It is, therefore, futile to suggest that on the death of defendant No. 1 on 18-4-1971 when the suit stood disposed of, there could be any question of abatement thereof. No application for substitution of the heirs of the deceased party could have been filed. The provisions of O.22, being applicable only to pending suits cannot be applied to the present case. Besides the effect of restoring the suit after setting aside ex parte decree vis-a-vis all the parties concerned including the heirs of defendant No. 1 is to implead them as parties to the suit and by their application dated 24th Mar., 1973, the plaintiffs were merely getting formal and consequential corrections made in the body of the plaint. If that were not so, it would have to be held as a necessary corollary, that the ex parte decree against defendant No. 1 was never set aside. 6. I, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Court below and allow the plaintiffs application for amendment of the plaint. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.