Judgment We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 2. This appeal has been filed by the son of the deceased, defendant No. 2 impugning the order dated 25th September, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the application of the plaintiff for bringing on record the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased, defendant No. 2. 3. The case of the appellant is that original defendant No.2 died on 16th May, 2008, during the pendency of the suit filed by the plaintiff on 13th September, 2005 against Subhkaran Dugar & Sons, HUF (defendant No.1) and Subhkaran Dugar (defendant No.2). In the aforesaid suit the plaintiff took out an application under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules being G.A. No. 1304 of 2006. The information regarding defendant No.2 was given to the Advocate of the plaintiff through letter dated 30th May, 2008. Consequently, the period of 90 days for substitution of legal heirs as provided under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 expired on 14th August, 2008. Still, on 26th August, 2008, the plaintiff took out G.A. No. 2914 of 2008 with the prayer for recording the death of defendant No.2 who was also the karta of defendant No.1, HUF. This application was not served on the legal heirs although it had been served on the Advocate of defendant No.2. 4. The application was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by order dated 9th September, 2008 by recording the death of defendant No.2 and the 'karta' of defendant No. 1. The Court also observed that it would be open to the plaintiff to apply for substitution upon ascertaining the names of the legal heirs of the deceased, defendant No.2. The period of 60 days for seeking setting aside of abatement also expired on 13th October, 2008. Thereafter, the plaintiff took out another application being G.A. No. 83 of 2009 for substitution of the appellant as legal heirs, with the prayer for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement. However, in the application, no explanation was give for explaining the delay or any sufficient cause as to why the delay ought to be condoned. 5. Inspite of the aforesaid fact situation, the learned Single Judge illegally passed an order in terms of Prayers A, B, C, D and E of Masters' Summons. 6. However, in the application, no explanation was give for explaining the delay or any sufficient cause as to why the delay ought to be condoned. 5. Inspite of the aforesaid fact situation, the learned Single Judge illegally passed an order in terms of Prayers A, B, C, D and E of Masters' Summons. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the order dated 9th September, 2008 did not either condone the delay or set aside the abatement. It merely recorded the factum of the death of defendant No.2. Without the abatement being set aside, the second application could not have been allowed. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly concluded that the order dated 9th September, 2008 was passed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The application was confined only for recording of the death of defendant No.2 and for seeking directions upon the Advocate on record of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to furnish the names, addresses and particulars of legal heirs of defendant No.2. 7. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge has erroneously concluded that the delay had been impliedly condoned in the order dated 9th September, 2008. The period of limitation, therefore, could not have started from 9th September, 2008 as held by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned herein. In any event, the plaintiff had miserably failed to show any sufficient cause either for condonation of delay or for setting the abatement. Learned Counsel relied upon a judgment of the Single Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kanis-Fatma vs. Mohd. Habib, AIR 1976 Bom. 303 , in support of the submission that it was imperative for the Court to examine as to whether the concerned party has shown sufficient cause for setting aside the abatement of the suit. He also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ram Charan (deceased) AIR 1984 SC 215 , in support of the submission that the Court should not readily accept whatever the applicant alleges to justify the delay. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the letter dated 30th May, 2008 did not give the particulars of the legal heirs. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the letter dated 30th May, 2008 did not give the particulars of the legal heirs. Therefore, immediately the plaintiff, sent a letter through his Advocate to the Advocate of the defendants seeking the names and addresses of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased as well as the addresses of the present 'karta' of the defendant No. 1. The letters specifically stated that these particulars are required to enable the plaintiff to take appropriate steps in the matter. It was only when the plaintiff was not given the necessary particulars that the first application being G.A. No. 2914 of 2008 was moved. 9. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the entire matter, the learned Single Judge was pleased to direct the recording of the death of defendant No.2. The plaintiff was granted liberty to apply for substitution upon ascertaining the names of the heirs of the deceased, defendant No.2. This observation was made by the learned Single Judge as the erstwhile Advocate on record of the defendants declined to divulge the particulars of the legal heirs on the ground that the Advocate was obliged only to inform the plaintiff of the death of the defendant No.2 under Order 22 Rule 10A of the CPC. This fact is duly noted by the Court in the aforesaid Order dated 9th September, 2008. Thus the plaintiffs moved GA No. 83 of 2009, within limitation, for substitution. 10. Learned Counsel submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable as the original order dated 9th September, 2008 was not challenged. The impugned order dated 25th March, 2009 is merely a consequential order. The learned Counsel also submitted that the abatement has been set aside after taking into consideration the non-co-operative attitude of the legal heirs of the deceased, defendant No.2. The delay, if any, had been caused by the appellants, deliberately to prejudice the case of the plaintiffs. 11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. The order dated 9th September, 2008 not having been challenged in appeal by the present appellants has attained finality between the parties. A prayer for condonation of delay had been clearly made in the application in which the aforesaid order was passed. 11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. The order dated 9th September, 2008 not having been challenged in appeal by the present appellants has attained finality between the parties. A prayer for condonation of delay had been clearly made in the application in which the aforesaid order was passed. Prayer B with regard to the recording the death of defendant No.2 could only have been granted by the Court after condoning the delay as prayed in clause A of the prayer clause. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has correctly observed that in the order dated 9th September, 2008, the delay stood condoned. 12. We are also of the opinion that the plaintiff had clearly shown sufficient cause both for condonation of delay and for setting aside abatement. The suit has been filed for recovery of the loan amount together with interest. Hence, an application has been filed, under Chapter XIIIA providing for summary procedure, in suits to recover debts or liquidated demands. 13. In our opinion, the plaintiff had nothing to gain by causing any delay in seeking the substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased, defendant No. 2. The application for substitution was filed within limitation when the same is calculated from the order of 9th September, 2008. In our considered opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or error of jurisdiction. 14. We find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.