JUDGMENT H. S. Thakur, J.— The above noted four C. M, Ps. No. 126/84, 16/84, 231/84 and 1581/84 can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. C. M. P. No, 126/84 is an application filed on behalf of the respondents on January 11, 1984, under Order 22, Rule 9, read with section 151, C. P. C. praying that the appeal be dismissed as having abated since the appellant Santu had expired on July 22, 1976 and his legal representatives (L. Rs.) are not brought on record since then, 3. C. M. P. (M) No. 16/8* is an application filed on behalf of the appellant on January 12, 1984 under Order 22, Rule 3, read with section 151, C. P. C. praying that the L. Rs. of Santu appellant be brought. It is stated in the application that Santu on record/died on June 14, 1978 and that the interest of the deceased had devolved upon his L. Rs. and that they may be brought on record as such. 4. C. M. P. No. 231/84 is an application filed on January 13, 1934 under Order 22, Rule 9 (2) read with section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act# In the said application, it is pointed out that Santu died on January the appeal having "been Tiled "by their rather in the High Court, It is also stated that the applicant is residing at Hoshiarpur along with his younger brother Roshan Lai and that they are working as Palledars in the Green Market. It is further stated that this other brother Daulat Ram also remains out from his village and works as labourer with a Forest Contractor. It is pointed out that the fourth brother is working as driver with a businessman of Jalandhar and visits his village after two or three years. In nutshell, it is asserted that all the brothers remain out of their village on work. It is further asserted that three of their sisters are married and are residing with their in-laws. It is emphasised that their old mother is sometime in the village and sometime at Hoshiarpur. It is specifically pointed out that their father Santu appellant did not inform them about the litigation pending in the High Court and that they were ignorant about the litigation prior to 3rd/4th January, 19i4. It is emphasised that their old mother is sometime in the village and sometime at Hoshiarpur. It is specifically pointed out that their father Santu appellant did not inform them about the litigation pending in the High Court and that they were ignorant about the litigation prior to 3rd/4th January, 19i4. The applicant has explained that when the respondents received summons from this Court, the same were shown to the Pradhan and also enquired about the death of Santu appellant. It is stated that the Pradhan informed the applicant on 4th January, 1984 at Hoshiarpur about the date of the appeal in the High Court. Ultimately, it is asserted that after they came to know from different sources about the appeal pending in the High Court, he along with the Pradhan met his Advocate at Simla who directed him to bring the power of attorney on behalf of the L. Rs. Under such a situation, the applicant is stated to have gone back to his village and after contracting his brothers and sisters got the power of attorney from them and came to Simla and filed this application. 5. C. M. P. No. 1581/84 is an application filed on behalf of Chuharu appellant who was a minor at the time of the filing of the appeal and was represented by Santu the deceased-appelant. It is stated in the application that after the filing of the appeal, he had become major and is aged about 23 years and that he is keen to pursue the appeal which was filed through his next friend during his minority. It is asserted that he had lost his parents during his infancy and was under the care of his uncle Santu deceased. It is stated by him that he used to be away from his village for earning his livelihood and visited his village rather rarely. It is also stated by him that he had no knowledge about the filing of the appeal in the High Court and came to know about it when he was informed by Pritam Chand son of Santu deceased at Hoshiarpur, during last January and that he had also no knowledge about the death of Santu prior to it. Ultimately, he has prayed that he may be allowed to persue the appeal. 6. All these C. M. Ps. are supported by affidavits. Ultimately, he has prayed that he may be allowed to persue the appeal. 6. All these C. M. Ps. are supported by affidavits. The only question to be decided in these petitions is whether there is sufficient cause shown by the L. Rs. of the deceased-Santu as also by Chuharu, for setting aside the abatement. According to the respondents, the deceased-appellant Santu died on July 22, 1976 as reflected in C. M. P. No. 126/84, whereas according to the L. Rs. of Santu he expired on January 14, 1978. Death certificate about the death of Santu has not been placed on record by the either party. At any rate, it can reasonably be inferred that the L, Rs. of the deceased-Santu had special means of knowledge about the date of his death. As such, January 14, 1978 has to be accepted as the date of his death. Accordingly, taking January 14, 1978 as the date of death of Santu appellant, it is to be seen whether under the facts and circumstances, the abatement can reasonably be set aside or not. 7. As pointed out earlier above, it is asserted by the L. Rs. that they did not know that any appeal had been preferred by their father and the same was pending in the High Court. They were working quite for away from their village and their sisters were married and were not living at their parental house. The widow of Santu is stated to be an old woman who was not living permanently in her village. 8, Similarly, Chuharu one of the appellants, was represented by his deceased uncle who died during the pendency of the case. Soon after becoming major, when he came to know about the pendency of the appeal, he filed the application referred to above, for allowing him to pursue the appeal. 9. It cannot be disputed that in case the L. Rs. of a deceased-party are not brought on record within the prescribed period, the appeal automatically stands abated. The abatement having so occurred can, however, be set aside on sufficient grounds. Numerous deceased have been referred to by the learned Counsel for the parties, during the course of arguments. 9. It cannot be disputed that in case the L. Rs. of a deceased-party are not brought on record within the prescribed period, the appeal automatically stands abated. The abatement having so occurred can, however, be set aside on sufficient grounds. Numerous deceased have been referred to by the learned Counsel for the parties, during the course of arguments. However, I do not feel it necessary to refer to all of them as the point involved in these petitions can conveniently be determined on the basis of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Sital Prasad Saxena Union of India and others, AIR 1985 SC 1. The facts of that case briefly were that one Shri Sital Prasad Saxena had filed a suit for a declaration about the status of his post and arrears of salary in respect on the post, in which he was entitled to continue. The suit cane up for hearing before the trial Court who by his judgment and decree dated July 7, 1969, dismissed the suit. Plaintiff Sital Prasad Saxena preferred a civil appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the District Court. The appeal came up for hearing who agreed with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Shri Sital Prasad preferred a second appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, the plaintiff Sital Prasad expired on February 25, 1976. Shri Mahendra Kumar Saxena claiming to be one of the sons of late Sital Prasad moved an application under Order 22, Rule 3, C .P. C. for substitution of heirs and L. Rs. of the deceased-appellant with a view to prosecuting the appeal. He simultaneously moved another application under Order 22, Rule 9, C. P. C. requesting the Court that if the appeal had abated for failure to seek substitution within the prescribed period of limitation, the abatement of the appeal may be set aside. He also moved another application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay. The High Court transmitted all the applications to the trial Court for enquiry and report regarding the date of death of Sital Prasad and knowledge about the pendency of the appeal of the heirs and L. Rs. He also moved another application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay. The High Court transmitted all the applications to the trial Court for enquiry and report regarding the date of death of Sital Prasad and knowledge about the pendency of the appeal of the heirs and L. Rs. in order to ascertain whether the applicant had made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay which, if permitted, would enable the Court to set aside the abatement. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, submitted the report, which in terms included a Binding that Mahendra Kumar Saxena had knowledge about the pendency of the second appeal before October 7, 1978, the date on which he moved the aforementioned applications. On the report of the trial Court, Mahendra Kumar Saxena and other L. Rs. moved an application praying for an opportunity to examine another son of the deceased-appellant. They also filed objections controverting the findings recorded by the trial Court. The High Court after minutely examining the rival contentions held that the conclusion reached by the trial Court was such that the learned Judge would not like to take a different view of the matter. It was on the basis of the aforesaid facts that their Lordships of the Supreme Court made the following observations: "........Approach to the applications seeking condonation of delay in moving the applications for substitutions of parties who died during the pendency of civil appeal in the High Court has to be as observed by this Court in Bhagwan Swaroop v. Fulchand, (1982) 2 SCC 132 : AIR 1983 SC 3t> and Hans Raj v. Sunder Lal Agarwal, (1982) 1 SCC 476. In the present case the High Court unfortunately committed an error in rejecting the application for condoning the delay. It is the High Court which had to ^ satisfy itself that the petitioner made out sufficient cause which prevented him from moving the application for substitution in time and not the trial Court. The High Court may call for report of the trial Court but then cannot adopt t e approach of a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction. It must examine the material collected by the trial Court and come to its own conclusion. The High Court may call for report of the trial Court but then cannot adopt t e approach of a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction. It must examine the material collected by the trial Court and come to its own conclusion. In this case the High Court observed that it was not persuaded to take a view different from the one taken by the trial Court. This is impermissible. The second error was that once an appeal is pending in the High Court, the heirs are not expected to keep a constant watch on the continued existence of parties to the appeal before the High Court which has a seat far away from where parties in rural areas may be residing. And in a traditional rural family the father may not have informed his son about the litigation in which he was involved and was a party. Let it be recalled what has been said umpteen times that rules of procedure are designed to advance justice and should be so interpreted and not to make them penal statutes for punishing erring parties." 10 Looking to the facts and circumstances narrated above, I am of the view that the C. M. P. No. 126/84 filed on behalf of the respondents praying that the appeal be dismissed as having abated is dismissed. C. M. P. No. 23/84 is allowed, the abatement is set aside and the delay in filing the application is also condoned, C. M. P (M) No. 16 of 1984 is also allowed. The L. Rs. of the deceased-appellant Santu, as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application, be brought on record and the cause title of the appeal be corrected accordingly. C. M. P. No, 1581/84 is also allowed and Chuharu appellant is allowed to persue the appeal. 11. The aforesaid C. M. Ps. are accordingly disposed of, but with no order as to costs. Order accordingly. -