JUDGMENT 1. - Provisions contained in Rule 10AORDER1 of the Civil Procedure Code, have been introduced specifically to mitigate the hardship arising from the fact that the party to a proceeding may not come to know about the death of the other party during the pendency of the proceeding when it is awaiting its turn for being heard. This duty is cast upon the Advocate appearing for the party who comes to know about the death of the party to intimate to the Court about the death of the party represented by him and for this purpose a deeming fiction is introduced that the contract between dead client and lawyer subsists to the limited extent after the death of the client. Rule 10-A was inserted by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 to impose an obligation on the pleader of the parties to communicate to the Court the death of the party represented by him. 2. What is the effect of non-compliance of Rule 10-A ? Whether the provisions of Rule 10-A are procedural ? These legal questions are to be examined in this revision which arises from the order dated April 25, 1994 and March 23, 1990 respectively passed by the lower appellate Court and the trial Court whereby the application filed by the plaintiff petitioner Sooka Lal (since dead and represented through L.R.'s) under Order 22 Rules 4 and 9, Civil Procedure Code was rejected. 3. The facts that lie in a short compass are that plaintiff petitioner Sooka Lal (for short plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction against Jeewan and Radhey Shyam. During the pendency of the suit Jeewan expired on December 15, 1987. The plaintiff moved application under Order 22 Rules 4 and 9, CPC, alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on July 27, 1988 for setting aside abatement of the suit and for bringing on record the legal representative of the deceased Jeewan. In the application it was stated that the plaintiff was an old person and his sons Krishna Nand who was to look after the cases, had been transferred from Karauli and was re-transferred on July 23, 1988. Thereafter he went to Gangapur City and when asked the Counsel about the progress of the case, he was informed by the Counsel that application for bringing on record the legal representative of deceased Jeewan had to be filed. Thereafter he went to Gangapur City and when asked the Counsel about the progress of the case, he was informed by the Counsel that application for bringing on record the legal representative of deceased Jeewan had to be filed. After making inquiry about the legal representative of deceased Jeewan, application was filed on July 27, 1988. It was also stated that the plaintiff had no knowledge that application had to be filed within 90 days. Plaintiff also submitted his affidavit in support of the application. The defendant contested the application refuted its contents and stated in reply that son of plaintiff was a clerk in Sub-Divisional office as such he was expected to have knowledge of the period of limitation. As the application was barred by limitation it could not have been accepted. 4. The trial Court dismissed the application. The plaintiff preferred appeal but the appeal was also dismissed as stayed herein above. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the impugned orders. 6. To appreciate the point involved, it is necessary to refer the provision of Rule 10AORDER22, Civil Procedure Code which reads as under : "Wherever, a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to know of the death of that party, lie shall inform the Court about it, and the Court shall thereupon give notice of such death to the other party, and for this purpose, the contract between the pleader and the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist." (Emphasis supplied)A cursory look at the provision reveals that it is the duty of the Counsel of a defendant to the suit to intimate the Court about the death of the defendant and the Court has to give intimation of the death to the plaintiff so that the plaintiff could take expeditious steps to bring the legal representatives on record. 7. Indisputedly the procedure was not followed in the instant case. Both the Courts below have passed the orders overlooking the provisions contained in Rule 10-A. 8. 7. Indisputedly the procedure was not followed in the instant case. Both the Courts below have passed the orders overlooking the provisions contained in Rule 10-A. 8. I am of the considered view, that rule 10-A cast duty upon the Counsel of tire defendant to inform the Court about the death of the defendant, as well as on the Court to inform, the plaintiff about the death of the defendant and if there is a dereliction of this duty on the part of the Counsel for the defendant as well as on the part of the Court, then no option is left with the Court, except to accept the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay in filing such application. 9. The Hon'ble apex Court in State of M.P. v. S.S. Akolkar, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1984 has also observed as under : "Under Order 22, Rule 10-A, it is the duty of the Counsel, on coming to know of death of a party, to inform it to the Court and the Court shall give notice to the other party of the death. By necessary implication delay for substitution of legal representatives begin to run from the date of knowledge." 10. Viewed from another angle, from what has been stated above, it is manifest that the Court has to ignore the fact of ignorance in filing the application for bringing the legal representative on record, after expiry of the period of limitation. By necessary implication delay for substitution of legal representatives begin to run from the date of knowledge." 10. Viewed from another angle, from what has been stated above, it is manifest that the Court has to ignore the fact of ignorance in filing the application for bringing the legal representative on record, after expiry of the period of limitation. Sub-Rule (5) in Rule 4ORDER22 was inserted by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 as under : "(5) Where : (a) the plaintiff was ignorant of the death of a defendant, and could not for that reason, make an application for the substitution of the legal representative of the defendant under this rule within the period specified in the Limitation Act, 1963, and the suit has in consequence, abated, and (b) the plaintiff applies after the expiry of the period specified there for in the Limitation Act, 1963, for setting aside the abatement and also for the admission of that application under Section 5 of that Act on the ground that he had by reason of such ignorance, sufficient cause for not making the application within the period specified in the said Act, the Court shall, in considering the application under the said Section 5, have due regard to the fact of such ignorance, if proved." 11. The plaintiff by filing his affidavit in support of the application has shown cause in not making application in time and it was necessary for the Courts below to appreciate the application in view of the provisions contained in Rule 10-A and Rule 4(5) of the Order 22. 12. I respectfully disagree with the contention canvassed by Shri Virendra Bandhu learned Counsel for the non-petitioner in support of the impugned orders. In my humble view ratio of AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 and AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1092 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. My view finds support from the observations made by the, Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. S.S. Akolkar (supra), which are as under : "It is settled-law that the consideration of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and setting aside of the abatement under Order 1 are entirely distinct and different. The Court always liberally considers the latter." 13. For the reasons aforementioned, I find merit in the revision. The Court always liberally considers the latter." 13. For the reasons aforementioned, I find merit in the revision. If jurisdictional errors committed by the Courts below are allowed to stand, it would occasion failure of justice. 14. Consequently, I allow the revision and set aside the impugned orders. The delay in filing the application under Order 22, Rules 4 and 9, Civil Procedure Code is condoned. The abatement is set aside and the legal representatives are brought on record. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. No costs.Petition allowed. *******