JUDGMENT - Dr. (Smt.) PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---Admit. Learned Advocates for the respondents waive service on behalf of their respective clients. By consent taken up for final hearing forthwith. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 31-1-2000, passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Mapusa in Special Civil Suit No. 5/92/A, whereby the application of the appellants dated 15-3-1999 for bringing heirs of the deceased plaintiff on record, for condonation of delay and for setting aside abatement, was dismissed. 3. The facts and the relevant dates in the case for appreciating the controversy, are: The original plaintiff, Tarabi Harischandra Sirsat died on 19-12-1996. Thereafter, as per the story of the present appellants, one application was made dated 3-2-97. The same, however, is not in the records of the Court anywhere. Even the Roznama, the certified copy of which is produced by the Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 9 to 12, does not reflect that any such application was ever made. This application, allegedly made by the appellants, for bringing legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff on record, does not mention the names of the heirs. The appellants, in the said application, a copy of which is annexed at page 8 of the paper book, only pray for more time to take necessary steps. 4. Thereafter, one more application dated 15-4-97 was made by the appellants for bringing L.Rs. on record. But, after perusal of the same, it appears that even this application is also for time and it cannot be construed as an application for bringing L.Rs. on record. There is no application for setting aside abatement as the said suit has automatically abated since the plaintiff has failed to being heirs on record within a period of 90 days, as per the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Thereafter, on 29-1-98, one more application for bringing legal heirs on record, was made by the appellants. Again the said application is also not for setting aside abatement. Thereafter, as per the contention of the appellants, they realised that the said application dated 3-2-97, allegedly made by the Advocate appearing for them, was not traceable and, therefore, application dated 15-3-1999 came to be filed by the present appellants, praying for condonation of delay in bringing heirs on record and for setting aside abatement. Thereafter, as per the contention of the appellants, they realised that the said application dated 3-2-97, allegedly made by the Advocate appearing for them, was not traceable and, therefore, application dated 15-3-1999 came to be filed by the present appellants, praying for condonation of delay in bringing heirs on record and for setting aside abatement. The said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 31-1-2000 in Special Civil Suit No. 5/92/A by a reasoned order, holding that the suit abated because of failure of the plaintiffs to bring heirs on record in time and since no application for setting aside abatement was made by the plaintiff's heirs. He held that the application for bringing the heirs on record was not made within a period of 90 days and, therefore, the suit itself abated and that thereafter, an application for setting aside abatement also was not made. The appellants felt aggrieved by this order and have now approached this Court by way of the present appeal from order. 6. The respondents opposed the said application contending that the suit had already abated and that no application for setting aside abatement was made within the prescribed period. It was argued that assuming that application dated 3-2-1997 was made, the said application was for adjournment, seeking time to take necessary steps. It is also pointed out by learned Advocate Shri Usgaonkar appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 8 that the applications dated 15-4-97 and 29-1-98 are purportedly the applications for bringing legal heirs on record. But that there are no names of the alleged heirs mentioned therein and that these applications are sans any prayer for setting aside abatement. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the lower Court was correctly passed and, prayed that the present appeal from order be rejected. 7. After hearing the Advocates of both sides at length, I find substance in the submissions made by Advocate Shri Usgaonkar appearing for respondents No. 1 to 8. As per amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, a suit automatically abates if legal heirs are not brought on record within the prescribed period. 7. After hearing the Advocates of both sides at length, I find substance in the submissions made by Advocate Shri Usgaonkar appearing for respondents No. 1 to 8. As per amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, a suit automatically abates if legal heirs are not brought on record within the prescribed period. The original plaintiff, Tarabai Sirsat expired admittedly on 19-12-1996 and since no heirs of the original plaintiff were brought on record within the period of 90 days from the date of her death and since there was no application for setting aside abatement within a period of two months thereafter and also in view of the fact that in the present application no sufficient cause was shown by the appellants, the lower Court rightly dismissed the application and the suit as having abated. 7-A. Having heard all the Advocates and having gone through the relevant dates, so also the relevant applications, copies of which are annexed to the paper book, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the following order : Appeal from Order dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal from order dismissed. -----