This defendant's appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1. 2. 1982 passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati whereby the order dated 6. 2. 1980 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Barpeta by which the suit on abetment had been dismissed, was set aside and the suit was remanded to the learned trial court for fresh decision in accordance with law. 2. Briefly, the admitted facts giving rise to this appeal were that Madhab Ch. Das plaintiff had filed title suit 5/74 for recovery of compensation for wrongful use and occupation of the premises against the defendants the present appellant. The, suit, was stayed by order dated 2.4.75 in view of a second appeal arising out of an earlier suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against the present appellant then pending in this court. During stay of the suit Madhab Ch. Das died on 17. 10. 75. An application by one of the heirs, the present respondent No. 1 was filed on 6. 5. 78 for substitution/to take steps. On 30.5.78 the stay of suit was vacated and time was allowed to the present respondent No. 1 to take steps. On 24. 7. 78 for failure to take steps the suit was dismissed in def­ault. An application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure hereinafter referred as the 'Code' was also rejected, whe­reupon an appeal was filed which was allowed and the suit was sent back to the learned trial court for fresh disposal. The learned trial court thereafter took the view that since Madhab Ch. Das had died on 17. 10. 1975 and no step for substitution of the legal repr­esentatives, under Order 22 Rule 3 (2) of the Code had been taken within time i.e. 90 days the suit had abated. No application for setting aside the abetment and condensation of delay had been moved. The learned trial court therefore, by order dated 6. 2. 1980 dism­issed the suit on abatement. In appeal by said legal representative Paresh Ch. Das the learned appellate court below has taken the view that since the proceeding in the suit had been stayed when Madhab Ch. Das had died there was no question of abatement of the suit. On 6. 5. 78 Paresh Ch. 2. 1980 dism­issed the suit on abatement. In appeal by said legal representative Paresh Ch. Das the learned appellate court below has taken the view that since the proceeding in the suit had been stayed when Madhab Ch. Das had died there was no question of abatement of the suit. On 6. 5. 78 Paresh Ch. Das had applied for substitution and on 30-5-78 the stay was vacated and hence there was no abatement of the suit and accordingly the order dated 6. 2. 1980 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Barpeta was set aside and the suit was remanded to the learned trial court. 3. Aggrieved, the defendant has come in appeal and Shri A. C. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on his behalf has submitted that the view taken by the learned trial court was correct and that the judgment of the learned appellate court below was erroneous. Shri Sarma has submitted that since no step had (sic, been taken) for substitu­tion of the legal representatives within the period of limitation of 90 days provided for substitution the suit had abated and it did not require any order by the court. No application for setting aside abatement and condonation of delay had been filed. In any case the applicat­ion dated 6. 5. 78 was not for substitution, it was only for taking steps and that too was, only by one of the legal representatives, even though it was on record, there were more legal representative of deceased Madhab Ch. Das. Shri A. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant has therefore submitted that the appeal1 should be allowed and the impugned judgment and order should be set aside. 4. Shri P. N. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the meanwhile the legal representatives of dece­ased Madhab Ch. Das had been brought on record and further that the view taken by the learned appellate court below was sound and correct and did not require any interference by this court. 5. I have considered the respective submissions for the parties and the judgments of the learned courts below. 6. Das had been brought on record and further that the view taken by the learned appellate court below was sound and correct and did not require any interference by this court. 5. I have considered the respective submissions for the parties and the judgments of the learned courts below. 6. On the admitted facts the only question which requires consi­deration in this appeal is, that where death of a party to the suit took place when the proceedings in the suit had been stayed and substitution within time provided for was not made, could it be said that abatement of the suit had taken place. 7. The learned appellate court below has observed that appl­ication dated 6.5.78 before the learned trial court was for substi­tution of necessary parties i.e. the legal representatives. The said application, however was not available on record. It appears that one of the legal representatives Paresh Ch. Das had moved the said application. Shri A. C. Sarma has submitted that said application was only for taking steps whereas the learned appellate court below has proceeded on the basis, that it was an application for substitution. I, therefore, take it that it was an application for sub­stitution because Paresh Ch. Das admittedly a legal representative had moved the application and for the purpose the stay of the suit had been vacated. 8. The submission of Shri A. C. Sarma, was that all the legal representatives had not applied for substitution and therefore the application could not be considered proper application for substitution of the legal representatives. Even on legal representative could be brought on record and accordingly that application by one legal representative Paresh Ch. Das should be considered an application for substitution of the legal representative. It is well settled that the estate of the deceased plaintiff could well be represented by one of the legal representatives and the other legal representative could also be substituted or could be made parties to the suit. Accordi­ngly, in my opinion the fact that the application dated 6. 5. 78 was by only one of the legal representatives was not quite material, in so far as the question under consideration was concerned. 9. Accordi­ngly, in my opinion the fact that the application dated 6. 5. 78 was by only one of the legal representatives was not quite material, in so far as the question under consideration was concerned. 9. It is quite true that abatement to take effect does not req­uire any order of the court and that it follows in case the legal representatives were not brought on record within the stipulated time but the question here is that whether there was any abatement. 10. Abatement has been defined in the Code, but in view of the provision in Order 22 Rule 3(1) "on an application made in that behalf shall cause the legal representative of the deceased pl­aintiff be made a party and shall proceed with the suit" (emphasis supplied) and the provisions in Rule 9 (2) of the same order. If it is proved that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from cont­inuing' the suit the court shall set aside the abatement or dismissal upon such terms' as to costs or otherwise as thinks fit, it appears that abatement was not the same as dismissal, but that abatement means as if there was "break-down or such 'obstruction' or 'imped­iment, that the suit could not proceed. The use of expressions ''and shall proceed with the suit" in Rule (1) and "from continuing the suit" in Rule 9 (2) indicates that abatement means the suit could not proceed because of death of the Party (concerned) and his legal representatives not having1 been substituted or brought on record to continue the suit. In this view of the meaning of 'abatement' it is difficult to see how, when the proceedings in the suit had been st­ayed (by the order of the court) could it be said that any abatem­ent had taken place. The proceedings were stayed, there could be no question of the proceedings could not proceed. The learned appe­llate court below relied upon Mukbul Alam vs. Jawad Hussain, AIR 1959 Allahabad 625 where the proceeding in appeal had been st­ayed when one of the appellants had died. Application for substitut­ion had been made after about 5 years of the death of the appellant. It was held that when the hearing of the appeal was stayed there was no question of abatement and consequently, it was further held, that there was no question of any condonation of delay in the matter. Application for substitut­ion had been made after about 5 years of the death of the appellant. It was held that when the hearing of the appeal was stayed there was no question of abatement and consequently, it was further held, that there was no question of any condonation of delay in the matter. For the reasons stated earlier I agree with the view taken in Mukbul Alam (Supra) 11. Shri A. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant has cited Bhubaneswari vs. State AIR 1979 OrissalJl where in an aba­tement matter it was held that it must be shown why the petition could not be filed immediately after the death of the party concerned ; Union of India vs. Ram Chandra AIR 1965 SC 215 where also it was held that it must be proved that he was prevented by sufficient cause from continuing the suit State of Gujarat vs. Sayed Md. Bakit Edriss AIR 1981 SC 1921 where also the view was taken that no cause was shown for condonation of delay for setting aside the abatement and hence the application could not be accepted. 12. It may be seen that in all the above cases relied by the appellant the question decided was different in that there had been abatement' whereas in the present case as stated earlier abatement had just not taken place. 13. Shri A. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the, appellant has also submitted that Madhab Chi Das had died on 17. 10. 1975 and there was no justification for the legal representatives not having taken steps until the application dated 6.5.78 was moved by one of the legal representatives. While it is true that the legal represent­atives of Madhab Ch. Das could have taken action, earlier, it does not make any difference to the basic fact that when the proceedings in the suit had been stayed by order dated 2.4.75, on the death of Madhab Ch. Das on 17.10.75 there could be no question of abate­ment because the proceeding in the suit in any case could not have proceeded in view of the order of stay. The stay was vacated on 30.5.78 after the application by one of the legal representatives dated 6.5. 78 had been moved for substitution. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and order of the learned appellate court below was sound and correct. This appeal fails and is dismissed. The stay was vacated on 30.5.78 after the application by one of the legal representatives dated 6.5. 78 had been moved for substitution. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and order of the learned appellate court below was sound and correct. This appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.