JUDGMENT 1. - Plaintiff petitioner in this revision petition is challenging the order dated 5.9.2002 of the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Sikar, Camp at Shreemadhopur, in Case No. 16/97 (B.T. No. 10/2001). Under this order the application filed by the defendant respondents under Order 22, Rule 9 of the CPC for setting aside the abatement of the appeal, has been allowed. 2. The suit was filed by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner for eviction of the predecessor-in-title of the defendant respondents from the suit premises. 3. The said suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 7 10.1993. 4. The deceased tenant filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. During the pendency of the appeal, on 11.9.1996 the plaintiff Mothilal expired. The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff Mothilal were not brought on the record and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed as having been abated on 2.1.1997. 5. The plaintiff petitioner filed execution petition and therein an application was filed by the defendant respondents for setting aside of the decree which was dismissed by the learned executing Court. The matter was brought by the defendant non-petitioners before this Court by filing S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1026/2001. The revision petition was dismissed on 20 5 7.2002. The plaintiff petitioners have taken the possession of the suit premises on 4.9.2002 in execution of the decree. 6. An application came to be filed on 13.2.1997 before the learned first appellate Court for setting aside of the abatement and for taking the heirs and legal representatives of deceased plaintiff Mothilal on the record. The 25 application has also been filed there with, under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay. That application came to be allowed under the impugned order. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that this is wholly a perverse order passed by the Officer of the rank of District Judge, 3o Sear and it cannot be allowed to stand. The learned first appellate Court has passed this order as if he has all the powers to pass any order like mentioning therein a simple line "in the interest of justice the same has to be passed." The learned first appellate Court has not recorded any ground for acceptance of this application filed under Order 22, Rule 9 of the CPC. He only stated the proposition that under Order 22, Rule 9 of the CPC the abatement of the suit can be set aside in case sufficient grounds are given out in support thereof and then he concluded by stating that the application is within limitation and in the interest of justice the same is allowed. This approach of the learned first appellate Court is difficult to accept. Even such an order is not expected from an Administrative Officer what to say from a Judicial Officer of the Rank of District Judge. In case this order of the learned first appellate Court is allowed to stand, it will occasion failure of justice and cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff petitioners. 8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The order dated 5.9.2002 of the learned first appellate Court is quashed and set aside. The learned first appellate Court is directed to restore the case No. 16/97 (B.T No. 10/2001) to its original number and stage and decide the same in accordance with the law.Revision Allowed - Case Remanded for Decision Afresh. *******