Judgment : This revision petition is directed against the order of the District Munsif, Uthamapalayam in I.A.No.496 of 1988, which was an application under O.22, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant in the suit. The relevant facts are shortly as follows: The suit was filed by the petitioner herein for a declaration that the suit property was a wakf belonging to the plaintiff Ghori and for consequential decree directing defendants 1, 4, 5 and 6 to hand over vacant possession of the suit property after removing the superstructures without any let or hindrance and directing the fifth defendant to remove the gate put up by him in the ‘B’ Schedule property and directing the 6th defendant to remove the structure put up in the ‘C’ Schedule property. 2. On 16. 1987, the first defendant died. The plaintiff made an endorsement on 11. 1987 that he was not filing L.R. petition for the first defendant. It is to be noted that even on that date, the time to bring the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant on record had expired and the plaintiff, if he wanted to file a petition to bring the legal representatives on record, ought to have filed an application for setting aside the abatement. 3. When the suit came up for trial on 24. 1988, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the first defendant’s legal representatives were not brought on record and the plaintiff had made an endorsement on 11. 1987 that he was not bringing the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant on record, and the Court made an order directing the plaintiff to implead the legal representatives of the first defendant and file a petition therefor before 6. 1988. The matter was directed to be called on 6. 1988. 4. The plaintiff filed an application actually on 26. 1988 to bring the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant on record. He did not file any application either to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the first defendant or to condone the delay in seeking to set aside the abatement. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it was merely stated that the first defendant died on 16. He did not file any application either to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the first defendant or to condone the delay in seeking to set aside the abatement. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it was merely stated that the first defendant died on 16. 1987 and at the time of the trial, the Court passed an order on 24. 1988 directing the impleading of the legal representatives and as per the said order, the application was being filed. The application was opposed by the other defendants in the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation and the plaintiff having deliberately omitted to bring the legal representatives on record in time, was not entitled to implead the legal representatives in the suit after the suit had abated. 5. The Court below accepted the contention raised by the defendants and held that the plaintiff ought to have filed an application for setting aside the abatement and for condonation of delay in seeking to set aside the abatement. The trial Court held that the plaintiff not having done so, the application was barred by limitation and consequently, dismissed the same. The trial Court referred to its order dated 24. 1988 and held that the order did not say that the plaintiff could file an application without getting the delay condoned. 6. In this revision petition it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application to bring the legal representatives record has been filed only pursuant to the direction of the Court dated 24. 1988 and there is no necessity for the plaintiff to file any application for condonation of delay or seeking to set aside the abatement. Secondly, it is contended by learned counsel that even assuming that an application to set aside abatement is necessary, the Court below ought to have treated the application to bring the legal representatives on record itself as an application for setting aside the abatement also and disposed of the matter accordingly. 7. I do not agree with the contentions put forward by learned counsel. Just because, the Court directed the plaintiff to bring the legal representatives on record, it does not mean that the Court exempted him from the relevant provisions of law prescribing the period within which legal representatives should be brought on record. 7. I do not agree with the contentions put forward by learned counsel. Just because, the Court directed the plaintiff to bring the legal representatives on record, it does not mean that the Court exempted him from the relevant provisions of law prescribing the period within which legal representatives should be brought on record. Nor the Court could suo motu set aside the abatement of a suit which had already come into effect even before the plaintiff made an endorsement on 11. 1987 stating that he would not bring the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent on record. In fact, the Court below has expressed that the order dated 24. 1988 did not exempt the plaintiff from seeking to set aside the abatement and to condone the delay in filing the application for setting aside the abatement. 8.. The second contention urged by learned counsel cannot also be accepted. Even assuming that the application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant on record can be treated as an application to set aside the abatement also, it cannot be treated as an application to condone the inordinate delay in seeking to set aside the abatement. There is no averment in the application explaining. As I have stated earlier, the petitioner herein decided originally not to bring the legal representatives on record and later changed his mind. Further, the suit had abated even on 11. 1987 when the plaintiff made an endorsement taking a definitestand that he would not bring the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant on record. If the plaintiff wanted to stick to that stand, he could have’ challenged the order dated 24. 1988 directing him to bring the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant on record. He did not do so. Just because the Court directed him to bring the legal representatives on record, he cannot escape the consequences of the law of abatement which had already come into effect in the present case. 9. Moreover, the application has not been filed as directed by the Court within the period specified by the Court. In the order dated 24. 1988 the plaintiff was granted time till 6. 1988 to file a petition to bring the legal representatives on record, but he did not do so. He filed the application only on 26. 1988. 9. Moreover, the application has not been filed as directed by the Court within the period specified by the Court. In the order dated 24. 1988 the plaintiff was granted time till 6. 1988 to file a petition to bring the legal representatives on record, but he did not do so. He filed the application only on 26. 1988. Learned counsel attempted to make a guess and state that the Court below would have extended the time further for filing the application beyond 6. 1988. There is nothing on record to show that such an extension of time was granted by the Court below. There is also no reference to such an extension of time by the Court in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the application to bring the legal representatives on record. 10. In the circumstances, the civil revision petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.