JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. There were two suits between the same parties pending in the court of Munsiff, Hindaun. By an order of this Court dated October 6, 1977 these two suits were consolidated and there-after proceedings were taken only in suit No. 135 of 1972, (119 of 1974), while no proceedings were taken in the other suit No. 127 of 1973. Surajmal defendant No. 2 in the two suits expired and an application for substitution of legal representatives was submitted by the plaintiff on August 6, 1984 which was allowed by the order dated November 20, 1984 and the plaintiffs were directed to file amended plaint within 14 days. In suit No. 135 of I 1972. the amended plaint was filed on December 3, 1984 but in the other suit bearing No 127 of 1973 the amended plaint was filed on April 19, 1985. The trial court accepted the plea on behalf of the plaintiff petitioner that the application for substitution dated August 6, 1984 should be deemed to have been filed in respect of both the suits and the order dated November 10, 1984 allowing the substitution of legal representatives of deceaded defandant No 2 Surajmal should also be deemed to have been made in both the suits, as no order sheet has been drawn it the other suit bearing No. 127 of 1973. But thereafter the learned trial court held that because the amended plaint was not filed by the plaintiffs in the last mentioned suit within 14 days, suit No. 127 of 1973 would be considered to have abated. 3. The present revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Munsiff dated November 6, 1985 directing abatement of suit No 127 of 1973 and it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that once the substitution has been ordered by the trial court in respect of both the suits light delay in the filing of amended cause-title could not have resulted in the abatement of the suit. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the trial court was not justified in holding that the order dated November 20, 1984 allowing the substitution of the legal representatives of deceased defendant Surajmal in both the suits was unlawful (sic lawful) inasmuch as the application for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant was moved only in one of the suits No. 135 of 1972 and as such the finding of the trial court in that respect was unjustified and the abatement of the suit No. 127 of 1973 was perfectly in accordance with law. 4. As the two suits were consolidated by the order of this Court dated October 6, 1977, the trial of both the suits was proceeding together and order sheets were drawn only in one of the suits, namely, No. 135 of 1972. The plain tiff were obviously misled by the conduct of proceeding by the trial court and, therefore, they filed only one application for substitution of the legal representatives of deceased defendant Surajmal and on that application the trial court passed the order dated November 20, 1984 .In these circumstances, the trial court appears to be justified in holding that the order of substitution should be deemed to have been passed in respect of both the suits. 5. If the part of the order relating to the substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant Surajmal is upheld, then mere delay in filing the amended plaint cannot be of such fatal nature as to result in the abate ment of the suit No 127 of 1973. Once the order of substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant be deemed to have been passed in respect of suit No. 127 of 1973 as well, the question of subsequent abatement of that suit on account of the failure of the plaintiffs to file an amended plaint could not arise. However, if the amended plaint was not filed, the court could proceed under Order 6 Rule 18 Civil Procedure Code and may not have allowed the plaintiffs to amend the plaint after the expiry of such limited time of 14 days unless the time was extended by the court, but as observed earlier, the question of abatement of the suit would not arise. 6. 6. In my view, the plaintiffs were obviously misled because of the order of consolidation and a too technical view of the matter should not be taken. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondents was unable to say as to whether any prejudice would be caused to the defendants on account of delay of the plaintiff in filing amended plaint in suit No. 127 of 1973 beyond the period of 14 days. As a matter of fact the amended plaint was filed in that suit on April 19, 1985 and the defendant respondents could be compensated by payment of costs for the delay caused by the plaintiff in filing the amended plaint in suit No. 127 of 1973. 7. I, therefore, allow the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Munsiff, Hindaun dated November 6. 1985 in so far as it holds that suit No. 127 of 1973 abated for the reason that the plaintiffs failed to file the amended plaint within a period of 14 days, after the order of substitution dated November 20, 1984 was passed. The trial court is directed to take the amended plaint filed by the plaintiffs on April 19 1985 in suit No. 127 of 1973 on record subject to the condition of the plaintiffs' paying a sum of Rs. 200/- by way of costs to the defendants. It is made clear that the payment of Rs. 200/- towards costs within a period of one month, shall be a condition precedent to the taking on record of the amended plaint in suit No. 127 of 1973. In case the aforesaid amount of costs is not paid within one month from today, the suit No. 127 of 1973 shall stand dismissed for failure of the plaintiffs to comply with the order of the court.Revision Allowed. *******