R. M. SAHAI, J. This petition is directed against order passed by Board of Revenue dismissing an application filed for substitution under Order 22, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code as being barred by time and abating second appeal under Order 22, Rule 9 although the village was notified under Section 4 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The circumstances in which the controversy arose were that Bahadur, Sahadeo, father of respondent No. 3 and husband of respondent No. 5 filed suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act against petitioners and opposite parties Nos. 6 to 15 claiming sirdari rights as they were sub-tenants and acquired adhivasi right on the date of vesting. This suit was dismissed on 23rd July, 1968 but the order was set aside and appeal filed by opposite party was allowed by Additional Commissioner on 23rd May, 1969. Against appellate judgment petitioners filed appeal which was numbered as Second Appeal No. 488 of 1968-69. It remained pending and during pendency of appeal the village was notified sometime in 1970 or prior to it, as from the order by consolidation officer in proceedings started under Section 9, on an objection filed by opposite parties Nos. 3 and 5 was decided on 31st December, 1970. The consolidation proceedings till the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation became final in 1971. In 1974 long after order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation notices were issued from Board of Revenue. The petitioners thereafter appear to have contacted his lawyer at Allahabad and was advised to file an application for substitution as one of the opposite parties had died during pendency of appeal. As there was long delay the petitioners filed an application under Sec tion 5 of the Indian Limitation Act as well. The ground on which the delay, in filing the application, was sought to be condoned was that appellant was under impression that appeal had automatically abated under Section 5 (2) (a) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The prayer of abating the appeal under Section 5 (2) (a) was also rejected nor was it accepted that after enforcement of consolidation the appeal stood automatically abated and the Board of Revenue was not competent to abate the appeal under Order 22, Rule 9. The prayer of abating the appeal under Section 5 (2) (a) was also rejected nor was it accepted that after enforcement of consolidation the appeal stood automatically abated and the Board of Revenue was not competent to abate the appeal under Order 22, Rule 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed all the three find were acting in good faith and were not negligent and careless. The impression that appeal in Board of Revenue abated, automatically, may not have been legally justified but certainly it was a reasonable belief in circum stances of case. In any case having come to know that appeal was still alive petitioners did not commit any default in pursuing their remedy diligently. The finding in these circumstances abating second appeal under Section 22, Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code cannot be upheld. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by Board of Revenue is quashed. He shall now decide the question of abatement under Section 5 of C. H. Act. The parties shall bear their own costs. .