ORDER 1. In 1979 late husband of the petitioner had filed suit against opposite party nos. 12, 13 and 14 on the ground of personal necessity and default. The suit was earlier decreed ex-parte but in appeal the suit was restored to its file and is now pending disposal. 2. Rajeshwar R. Bhatt, husband of the petitioner, who was plaintiff no. 2 (gha) in the title suit, died on 6.5.1994. The petitioner filed an application on 23.9.1994 for her substitution in place of her husband. The petitioner also prayed for condoning the delay in filing the substitution application on the ground that on account of death of her husband she was very much disturbed and hence application could not be filed in time. Objection was filed by the opposite party that the suit had abated on account of non-filing of the substitution application within the stipulated period of 90 days. The court below has had that the application not having been filed within 90 days, the suit has abated. 3. It may be stated that the joint owners of the premises are already on record. Learned trial court has adopted a very technical approach that since no prayer for setting aside the abatement was made after condoning the delay, the application for substitution could not be accepted. Learned trial court was clearly wrong in not considering the prayer of the petitioner for condoning the delay. It is not necessary that there should be specific prayer for setting aside abatement. Learned trial court has wrongly refused to exercise its jurisdiction vested in law. He should have allowed the prayer of substitution after condoning the delay. 4. This application is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 9.8.1996 is set aside and the prayer for substitution is allowed. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously preferably within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. Application allowed.