JUDGMENT This is an application u/s 151 C.P.C. for dismissing the appeal as abated. It has been alleged that respondents Ghasiram and Chhatarsingh died in the month of Sept. 1993 and in December 1993 respectively: An application dated 30.9.94 under O. 22 R. 9 CPC has been moved purporting for setting aside the abatement so far as Ghasiram is concerned. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the appeal has abated as both the respondents have died and in support certificates from the Gram Panchayat have been filed showing that Ghasiram died on 3.9.1993 and Chhatarsingh died on 1.12.1993. The appeal has thus abated. He also relied upon 1988 MPLJ 587 , 1988 (I) MPWN 80 (State of M.P. v. Ismile and others) in support of his contention. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that an application under O. 22 R. 9 has been moved for setting aside the abatement. In this application it has been mentioned that the appellant came to know about the death of respondent Ghasiram on 21.9.1994 when the counsel· for respondents filed an application intimating the death of Ghasiram. It has also been stated that the appellant is the State of Madhya Pradesh and respondent Ghasiram was the resident of Khejdatila, Tahsil Basoda, district Vidisha. The officers residing at Basoda were not aware regarding the death of Ghasiram. The learned counsel fur the respondents pointed out that even if the application under 0.22 R. 9 moved by the appellant be taken, it will mean that it relates to Ghasiram alone and no application about Chhatarsingh has been moved even though there was a specific mention in respect of both the respondents in the application dated 15.9.1994. I have considered the contentions raised before me. There cannot be any dispute about the principle of law that abatement is automatic and it does not need any order of the Court. Thus after the expiry of the period of I imitation for moving for substitution abatement took place. Ghasiram died, as said above, on 23.9.93 whereas Chhatarsingh died on 1.12.93. There cannot be any dispute about the principle of law that abatement is automatic and it does not need any order of the Court. Thus after the expiry of the period of I imitation for moving for substitution abatement took place. Ghasiram died, as said above, on 23.9.93 whereas Chhatarsingh died on 1.12.93. No application for substitution has been moved within time and as such there was an automatic abatements of course, an application under 0.22 R. 9 has been moved so far as Ghasiram is concerned and the ground alleged is that the appellant came to know from the application of the respondent on 21.9.94: Il is unfortunate that in spite or the fact that there is specific mention that both the respondents, Ghasiram and Chhatarsingh died, in the same application, no steps were taken for getting the abatement set aside so far as Chhatarsingh is concerned. It was also argued that it was a suit for declaration and right to sue does not survive. In this view of the matter I think the appeal has abated: There is no justification to set aside abatement so far as Ghasiram is concerned. It will serve no purpose as inspite of the communication if the death of Chhatarsingh, no application was moved for substitution of his heirs. Therefore, the application of the respondents is allowed. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as abated.