Judgment ( 1. ) THIS petition is directed by the applicant/appellant/defendant laxmi Chand (since dead) (now represented by the legal representatives) for setting aside the abatement of the S. A. No. 480/05 caused on account of death of Phoolabai, the respondent no. 2 of such appeal. The prayer for restoration of such Second Appeal is also made. In pendency of the petition i. A. No. 8120/06 under Order 22 Rule 9 r/w Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the petition for setting aside the abatement is also filed. The application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC is not filed separately in the present petition as the same was filed as IA. No. 3211/06 on 27. 3. 06 in the aforesaid second appeal. ( 2. ) IN all the applications it is said that Smt. Phoola Bai the principle respondent no. 2 in the aforesaid S. A. had died on dated 23. 12. 05. Such intimation was given by her counsel in the court on dated 27. 1. 06. From such date within 60 days the application for bringing her legal representatives on record was filed in aforesaid S. A. on dated 27. 3. 06, but vide order dated 4. 8. 06 by holding such application barred by time the appeal was dismissed directing that the same has been abated automatically on not bringing the legal representatives of respondent no. 2 on record within 90 days from the date of her death. However, liberty was given to the applicant to file an appropriate application for setting aside such abatement. The application for setting aside the abatement is preferred on dated 24. 8. 07, after passing the aforesaid order regarding dismissal of the appeal. As per further averments of the petition the initial application for bringing her legal representatives was filed within 60 days from the date of knowledge received from the counsel of the deceased-respondents under Order 22 Rule 10-A of the CPC. Thus, the same could not be treated as barred by time. Besides this averments regarding condoning the delay in filing the proceedings for setting aside the abatement are also mentioned. The petition and IA no. 8120/06 are supported by an affidavit of the principle applicant Laxmi Chand (since deceased ). Thus, the same could not be treated as barred by time. Besides this averments regarding condoning the delay in filing the proceedings for setting aside the abatement are also mentioned. The petition and IA no. 8120/06 are supported by an affidavit of the principle applicant Laxmi Chand (since deceased ). In pendency of the petition the sole principle applicant died and his legal representatives the present applicants were brought up on record. ( 3. ) THE notices of this petition were sent to the respondent no. 1 and the proposed legal representatives of respondent no. 2 whose names are mentioned in para 1 of the petition. In response of such notices the reply of aforesaid applications are filed on their behalf. According to them the grounds mentioned by the applicants for condoning the delay and setting aside the abatements are denied. It is further stated that in the lack of any sufficient cause the petition as well as IA are liable to be dismissed. The proposed legal representatives of respondent no. 2 can not be deprived from their acquired legal right on not bringing them on record within limitation. Such reply are also supported by the affidavits of Ghanshyam Pawar, one of the legal representatives of the deceased, the respondent no. 2. ( 4. ) DURING the course of arguments, learned counsel of the parties by referring the facts stated by them in petition, application and the reply respectively, placed their reliance on some reported cases and the applicants counsel prayed for allowing this petition while the prayer for dismissal of the same is made on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and the proposed legal representatives of the respondent no. 2. ( 5. ) HAVING heard, learned counsel, on perusing the record, it is undisputed position that the respondent no. 2 of the aforesaid S. A. died on 23. 12. 05. The same was disclosed before the court by her counsel on 27. 1. 06. Thereafter an application I. A. No. 3211/06 under Order 22 Rule 4 and 11 of the CPC for bringing her legal representatives, namely Ghanshayam Pawar and Ashok Pawar on record was filed on dated 27. 3. 06. Accordingly from the date of receiving the knowledge of such death the same was filed within 60 days but from the date of death it was filed after 94 days. 3. 06. Accordingly from the date of receiving the knowledge of such death the same was filed within 60 days but from the date of death it was filed after 94 days. In such premises the same was preferred barred by four days and for one reasons or another best known to the deceased-applicant or his counsel the application under order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC for setting aside the abatement was not filed alongwith the aforesaid application, hence on listing the case for consideration of such IA on dated 4. 8. 06 the appeal was dismissed as abated with liberty to applicants-predecessor to file the proceedings for setting aside the abatement and subsequent to that order this proceeding is preferred on 24. 8. 06. A separate application for condoning the delay in filing the proceeding for setting aside the abatement is also filed, although, it appears that the petition and the applications are preferred after some days from the date of their drafting and getting attestation of the affidavit. ( 6. ) IT is settled proposition of law that cases must be decided on merits and the same should not be dismissed only on account of some technical provisions. In other words the justice should not be lost in technicalities. Besides this it is also settled proposition that for condoning the delay in filing the proceedings and for setting aside the abatement of any proceeding the sufficient cause should be construed liberally. Long back this court has answered such question in the matter of Genda Lal Vs. Hari Singh reported in 1997, M. P. Weekly Note Vol. 2 Note 41 in which it was held as under: "counsel for the N A however dabbed the aforesaid contention as non-meritorious. He admitted that it was the duty of the pleader of the defendants to communicate to the Court about death of a party in terms of Order " 22 " r 10-A CPC. The duty was discharged on 14. 9. 90. The application presented on 30. 11. 90 was therefore, within time from the date of such communication. Moreover, the application was filed on 7. 11. 90, i. e. within limitation for time to ascertain particulars of legal representative. Time was granted by the court. In view of these facts, features the order does not suffer from any error. In Collector Land Acquisition V. Mst. 11. 90 was therefore, within time from the date of such communication. Moreover, the application was filed on 7. 11. 90, i. e. within limitation for time to ascertain particulars of legal representative. Time was granted by the court. In view of these facts, features the order does not suffer from any error. In Collector Land Acquisition V. Mst. Katiji and others ( AIR 1987 SC 1353 ) it is held that a maritorius matter should not be thrown out at the very threshold and cause justice should not be defeated. The only consequence on allowing prayer for substitution is that the matter will be decided on merit after hearing the parties. As the application for substitution is without time from the date of communication under Order 22 Rule 10-A CPC as noted above I am satisfied that the Court below did not commit any error in allowing the application. True it is that the N. A. should have also filed application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC and S. 5 of the Limitation Act but the procedural wrangle connot be permitted do defeat the course of justice. However, as the application under order " 22 Rule 4 CPC is allowed, it may be construed that abatement, if any, was set aside as there is insufficient material about sufficient cause in terms of order 22 Rule 9 (2) CPC. In the face of belated information by the Pleader of the deceased " defendant, delay, if any, was also required to be condoned. Eventually the order has done justice, and is not liable to be dislodged. Law and justice are not distant neighbours. The order delivers justice and it is not amenable to interference in revisional jurisdiction. " ( 7. ) THE aforesaid case is based on the principle of the Apex Court and has also given verdict on the question involved in the present petition and the same is applicable to the case at hand. ( 8. ) RESPONDING the aforesaid arguments the respondents relied on AIR 1964 SC 215 ( Union of India Vs. Ram Charan (deceased) through his lrs and 1999 (2) M. P. L. J. 461 (Ramadhar Sharma Vs. Sewaram, s/o shriram and others ). ( 8. ) RESPONDING the aforesaid arguments the respondents relied on AIR 1964 SC 215 ( Union of India Vs. Ram Charan (deceased) through his lrs and 1999 (2) M. P. L. J. 461 (Ramadhar Sharma Vs. Sewaram, s/o shriram and others ). Although this court has no dispute regarding the principles laid down in such cases, but in the present circumstances the bonafide of the applicant is apparent that on receiving the information regarding death of the respondent no. 2, the application for bringing her legal representatives was filed within sixty days from such date, such IA 3211/06 is available in the record of said S. A. Besides this the court has to consider the impact and spirit of the order dated 4. 8. 06 passed in the aforesaid Second appeal whereby the liberty to file the application for setting aside the abatement was extended and under such liberty the present petition is preferred. ( 9. ) UNDER the aforesaid premises, I am of the considered view that the person like the applicants should not be deprived to get justice on merits in their appeal by dismissing this petition when there bonafidies to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent is apparent on record. As on receiving the information on 27. 1. 06 that respondent Phoolabai died on 23. 12. 05 after tracing the name of proposed legal representatives the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC was filed on 26. 3. 06, although without application for setting aside the abatement of the appeal in that regard. Such delay was only four days from the date of her death. But other available circumstances on record and the aforesaid dictum of the court give sufficient circumstances to hold the sufficient cause for condoning the delay and also for setting aside the alleged abatement of the appeal in respect of the deceased " respondent no. 2, Bhoolabai. Therefore in my opinion the aforesaid IA and the petition deserve to be allowed. ( 10. ) THEREFORE by allowing the IA No. 8120/06 the entire delay in filing the petition for setting aside the abatement, is condoned and in pursuance of it by allowing this petition the abatement of the appeal caused on account of death of the respondent no. ( 10. ) THEREFORE by allowing the IA No. 8120/06 the entire delay in filing the petition for setting aside the abatement, is condoned and in pursuance of it by allowing this petition the abatement of the appeal caused on account of death of the respondent no. 2 is also set aside and by restoring the aforesaid s. A. No. 480/05 on its original number the office is directed to list the same before the appropriate bench for consideration of IA No. 3211/06. In the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to the costs.