Honble DALELA, J.–Heard. (2). An application has been moved on 3.11.1997, by the appellant-defendant, u/Order 22, Rules 4 and 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), for causing the legal representative of the deceased respondent-plaintiff to be made party and setting aside abatement, if any. The counsel for the defendant informed this Court on 20.8.1997, that the respondent-Vasudev, has expired on 21.6.1997. A copy of the information was given to the learned counsel for the appellant on 12.8.1997. (3). In the case of State of M.P. vs. S.S.Akolkar (1), Honble Supreme Court has observed as under ;- ``Under O.22, R. 10-A, it is the duty of the counsel, on coming to know of the 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 of substitution of legal representatives begins to run from the date of knowledge....It is settled law that the consideration for condonation of delay u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act and setting aside to the abatement u/O. 22 are entirely distinct and different. The Court always liberally considers the latter...... (4). This decision of Honble the Supreme Court, has been followed by this Court, in the case of Sooka Lal (Dead, through LRs.) vs. Kishan & Anr. (2). (9). Having regard to the law, as propounded by Honble the Supreme Court, I feel that the application u/O.22, Rr.4 & 9, C.P.C., deserves to be allowed and thelegal representative of the deceased respondent, Govind Narain Sharma, should be brought on record, and the abatement be set aside. (6). Order is, therefore, passed accordingly. The amended cause- title has already been filed, which is taken on record. The Office is directed to place it at the appropriate place in the file. Notice be issued to the legal representative. Govind Narain Sharma. (7). Put up in the month of April, 1999, for hearing.