Honble YADAV, J. – Heard. (2) Perused the substitution application,for setting aside abatement and application moved under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay together with counter- affidavit filed by the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondents No. 1 and 2, opposing the aforesaid applications. (3) In the present Second Appeal an application for setting aside the abatement supported with an affidavit has been moved as envisaged under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC wherein in the affidavit it is alleged that the defendant-appellants came to know about the death of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Mohan Lal who expired on 15.2.94 and about the death of plaintiff-respondent No. 2 Baloo Lal who expired on 13.8.88 from the application dated 10.4.95 moved by the counsel of heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 1 and 2, for dismissing the appeal as abated due to their failure to move substitution application within limitation. It is stated that after getting information on 10.4.95 from the aforesaid application the counsel for defendant appellants wrote a letter on 15.4.95 to them which was received by Shri Mishri Lal appellant no. 2 who in turn wrote a letter to appellant No. 5, Bhuralal who is suffering from paralysis therefore he informed his son Madan Lal and made him conversant about the death of respondents No.1 and 2. (4) It is further stated in paragraph 4 of the aforesaid affidavit that before appli- cation for dismissing the appeal as abated on 10.4.95 was moved by the learned counsel of heirs and legal representatives of deceased plaintiff-respondents named above the appellants have no knowledge about the death of the respondents No. 1 and 2. (5) The heirs and legal representatives of deceased -respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed a counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit moved in support of setting aside the abatement and also controverted the application for condonation of delay. (6) It is stated in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit filed by Ramesh Chandra, adopted son of deceased plaintiff-respondent No. 2,Baloo Lal that all the appellants are residing in the same Mohalla Koushithal at which place death of respondent No. 2 took place on 13.8. 1988, therefore, they have full knowledge about the death of respondent No. 2. (6) It is stated in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit filed by Ramesh Chandra, adopted son of deceased plaintiff-respondent No. 2,Baloo Lal that all the appellants are residing in the same Mohalla Koushithal at which place death of respondent No. 2 took place on 13.8. 1988, therefore, they have full knowledge about the death of respondent No. 2. It is specifically stated that one Shantilal who is residing with appellant No. 5 Bhuralal has participated in the funeral of respondent No. 2 there- fore the appellants have full knowledge on 13.8.88 itself about death of respondent No. 2 but they did not move any substitution application within limitation. The appellants deliberately and willfully remained silent about seven years after getting knowledge about the date of death of plaintiff-respondent No.2. (7) With regard to knowledge about death of respondent No. 1 it is stated in the counter-affidavit that respondent No. 1 expired in Deoria which is only 4 Kilometres away from Koushithall the place of residence of the appellants where appellants used to make frequent visits and as such they have full knowledge about the death of respondent No.1. (8) There is no quarrel about the principle of law that immediately after expiry of 90 days if no application for substitution is moved by the plaintiff or appellant after death of any of the plaintiff or defendant or appellant or respondent as the case may be then under the present Civil Procedure Code an abatement takes place automatically without any judicial order and such abatement can be set aside on an application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC even if noformal judicial order declaring the abatement has been passed.The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been made applicable to such applications. (9) It is well to remember that an application for substitution is to be moved by the plaintiff or appellant within 90 days as contained under Article 120 of Indian Limitation Act 1963 from the date of death of the plaintiff, appellant defendant or respondent as the case may be. (9) It is well to remember that an application for substitution is to be moved by the plaintiff or appellant within 90 days as contained under Article 120 of Indian Limitation Act 1963 from the date of death of the plaintiff, appellant defendant or respondent as the case may be. If he fails to move such application for substitution within 90 days the suit or appeal as the case may be shall be deemed to have abated automatically without passing any judicial order to this effect but still the plaintiff or appellant will have a chance to move an application for setting aside abatement of suit or appeal as envisaged under sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of Order 22 supported with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act showing sufficient cause which prevented him from continuing the suit or appeal within sixty days from the date of abatement as postulated under Article 121 of Limitation Act. It is further to be imbibed that an application for substitution may be treated as an application for setting aside abatement provided sufficient cause which pre- vented the plaintiff or appellant to continue the suit or appeal is proved. (10) Here in the present case it is true that the appellants have moved an application for setting aside abatement but the reasons disclosed alleging to have prevented them from not continuing appeal for a period of about seven years after death of respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be sufficient cause (11) In my considered opinion in the present case the defendant appellants have personal knowledge about the death of plaintiff- respondent No. 2 on 13.8.88 when Shantilal living with appellant No. 5 participated in his funeral and they have also full knowledge about the death of respondent No. 1 because of their frequent visits to Deoria which is only 4 Kms. away from the place of their residence. They have deliberately and wilfully avoided to move a substitution application within limitation and also an application for setting aside abatement within limitation. The allegations of the appellants that they got information from the application moved by heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondents No.1 and 2 on 10.4.1995 making Prayer for passing a formal judicial order declaring the present appeal to have abated do not inspire my confidence. The allegations of the appellants that they got information from the application moved by heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondents No.1 and 2 on 10.4.1995 making Prayer for passing a formal judicial order declaring the present appeal to have abated do not inspire my confidence. The appellants have knowledge about the date of death of plaintiff-respondent No. 2 on 13.8.88 itself. The appellants have miserably failed to give sufficient cause which could be said to have prevented them from moving an application for setting aside abatement accompanied with an application for condonation of delay hence their both applications for setting aside abatement and condonation of delay deserve to be rejected. (12) The reasons given for setting aside abatement are not sufficient and do not inspire my confidence. In view of what has been discussed above the instant application for setting aside abatement and application for condonation of delay are rejected and the instant Second Appeal is hereby declared to have abated long back and as such it is dismissed with costs. _____