JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, I.A.S. Member. - This is defendant's second appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 11-10-1982 passed by Sri N.C. Sharma, Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in appeal No. 115 of 1979-80, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 4-9-1980 passed by Sri R.C. Pandey, SDO/Assistant Collector 1st class in a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. 2. The facts of the case are that plaintiff Pahlu brought a suit for ejectment under Section 209 of the Act against the defendant Akbar with the allegation that he was the recorded tenant of plot No. 2058/0-12-0 situate in village Rasoolpur gholdi and that the defendant Akbar had illegally trespassed over his land in 1964. The defendant denied the allegations claiming possession over the land for more than six years and having perfected his sirdari rights. The learned trial court decreed the suit in 1966. The defendant went in appeal/before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Commissioner allowed the appeal setting aside the trial court's finding. Te plaintiff preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court for decision afresh in 1976. On 16-11-1977, the plaintiff made an application before the trial court for substitution of the defendant Akbar deceased by his sons Khurshid, Jafar and Shabbir. The learned trial court allowed this application on 16-11-1977. The defendant preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The Commissioner allowed the appeal. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal before the Board. On 6-8-1979, the Board allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court for decision afresh. When the case was taken up, it was argued before the trial court that the defendant Akbar died on 12-9-1971 during the pendency of the second appeal. Since the Board had passed orders against a dead person, the order was a nullity. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the suit holding that the order of substitution and the order of the Board was a nullity. The plaintiff Pahalu preferred an appeal before he Divisional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court dated 4-9-1980 and remanded the case back to it for disposal. Hence this second appeal by the defendant. 3. I have heard Sri V.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant. The plaintiff Pahalu preferred an appeal before he Divisional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court dated 4-9-1980 and remanded the case back to it for disposal. Hence this second appeal by the defendant. 3. I have heard Sri V.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent. He has contended that the defendant Akbar died on 12-9-1971 during the pendency of the second of the second appeal. But no steps for substitution was taken and the order passed by the Board and subsequent proceedings were, therefore, nullity. His contention is that the death of the defendant Akba under Order XXII, Rule 10-A, CPC because Rule 10-A came in force on 30-12-1976. 4. It appears for the second appeal No. 36 of 1966-67 that the substitution application was made by the appellant on 3-5-1976 along with an affidavit sworn in by Pahalu with the prayer to substitute Khurshid, Jafar and Bashir, all sons of the deceased Akbar. A prayer to condone the delay was also made. No orders appear to have been passed on this application and the appeal was decided on 7-8-1976. It is, therefore, not correct to say that no steps for substitution was taken. Where an application duly supported by an affidavit is made for substitution with prayer to condone the delay and no formal order for substitution is passed and delay not condoned, the delay is deemed to have been condoned and substitution allowed. This view finds support from the observations made in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 104 of 1981 in Second Appeal No. 1837 of 1972 by the Hon'ble Sinha J. of the Allahabad High Court. 5. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The learned trial court shall proceed with the suit in pursuance of the remand order of the Board and to decide the case on merits. 6. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 2-2-1993.