JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This is a defendant's revision application against the order dated June 4, 1977 passed by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, dismissing Revision application No. 33 of 1975-76/Allahabad against the order dated June 19, 1976 passed by the S.D.O., Meja, Allahabad, allowing substitution application of the heirs of deceased plaintiff Balbodh and about Vilayat Jan and Sahdeo who is alleged to have died on December 22, 1975. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. Substitution application regarding Vilayat Jan was moved on April 2, 1975 who was resident of Allahabad city when the knowledge of her death came to the applicant allowed, the revision application has not been pressed about substitution of her heirs. Defendant Sahdeo died on December 22, 1975 and the application was moved for substitution on January 3, 1976 which was within time, hence it has also not been pressed. So was the case regarding Smt. Gulab Kali who has remarried. 4. The main contest between the parties had been regarding substitution application dated January 16, 1975 in place of Balbodh deceased plaintiff who admittedly died on April 16, 1974. 5. It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the plaintiff had knowledge about the death of Balbodh, who admittedly died on April 16, 1975 without any application for setting aside the automatic abatement after 90 days of the death, the limitation starts to run from the date of the death per Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act which limitation cannot be extended under the law, therefore, both the courts below erred in law in allowing the mere substitution application. 6. It was argued in replay that the reference dated December 7, 1973 was decided by the Hon'ble Board on November 28, 1974 without hearing the parties. There was stay order, therefore, no substitution application could have been moved and information was given in the revision application by application dated October 23, 1974. The file was received in the trial court on January 15, 1975 and no the next day i.e. January 16, 1975, the substitution application was moved supported with affidavit. The substitution application can be treated as an application for setting aside abatement and for condoning the delay. The file was received in the trial court on January 15, 1975 and no the next day i.e. January 16, 1975, the substitution application was moved supported with affidavit. The substitution application can be treated as an application for setting aside abatement and for condoning the delay. Both the courts below came to the conclusion that there was sufficient ground for condoning the delay and the finding the fact in discretionary matters cannot be interfered with in revision, Order 22, C.P.C. is not applicable to revision. Reliance has been placed on Maqbul Alam and others v. Jawwad Husain and others 1958 A.L.J. 326. Beni Madho Ram v. Balbhadra Misra and others 1955 R.D. 199. and Chandradeo Pandey and others v. Sukhdeo Rai and others 1972 A.L.J. 603. 7. If the proceedings are stayed all proceedings in the suit will remain stayed. It may be open to the parties to make an application for substitution, for that would have remained pending as the court could not have passed order in the meantime. In any event, if the proceedings had been stayed, that itself would be a good ground for condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in making an application for substitution. 8. An application for substitution of legal representatives either under Rule 3 of 4 of order 22, of the C.P.C. presented after the prescribed limitation of 90 days can be treated as an application for setting aside abatement under Rule 9. 9. In 1958 A.L.J 326 (supra) and in Malkhan Singh v. Sarnam Singh 1965 R.D. 356. it has been held that if the proceedings are stayed all proceedings in suit will be deemed to be stayed and stay of proceedings is a sufficient ground for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Act. In Guptu Sing v. Jogi Singh 1948 R.D. 445. which was followed in 1965 R.D. 356. it was held that an application for substitution of legal representatives of a deceased person can be treated also as an application for setting aside the abatement and it was held in Beni Madho Ram v. Balbhadra Misra etc. (supra) that the benefit of Section 5 Limitation Act cannot be refused for the reason that no application was made for employing Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Even the court's power under Section 151 C.P.C. can be used. 10. (supra) that the benefit of Section 5 Limitation Act cannot be refused for the reason that no application was made for employing Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Even the court's power under Section 151 C.P.C. can be used. 10. In view of the above, in my considered opinion as the proceedings were stayed due to reference dated December 7, 1973 which was pending in the Board and was decided without hearing the parties in Chamber on November 28, 1974 the proceedings were stayed and the file reached in the trial court on January 15, 1975 and without delay the substitution application was moved on January 16, 1975 supported with affidavit mentioning the above facts, therefore, there was sufficient ground for condoning the delay and the substitution application was rightly treated as application for setting aside the abatement and the delay was rightly condoned. Although the trial court did not mention the fact of condoning the delay and treating the application for setting aside the abatement and treated the application within time but it meant it to be so and also learned Additional Commissioner also purported to mean so. Therefore, I hereby set aside the abatement condoning the delay and treating the substitution application for setting aside abatement and confirm the orders passed by the courts below regarding substitution. 11. In view of the above, there is no force in this revision application which is hereby dismissed. The record of the trial court shall be sent to it without delay and the case must be disposed of by the trial court expeditiously.