JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 2. In the instant case, the original tenant died and intimation to this effect was given by the counsel for the defendant to the court. The original defendant/tenant died on 15.12.2008 and thereafter no application for substitution was filed as admittedly there is no natural heir of the deceased defendant. 3. An application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. Came to be filed by the plaintiff on 06.05.2009 wherein it was stated that one Madhusudan Soni son of Khemraj is in the possession of the premises in dispute and as such it is necessary to implead the said Madhusudan Soni as a party to the suit. This application, as has been stated above, was filed under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. An objection came to be raised by Madhusudan Soni to the effect that the suit stood abated as no application within 90 days for substitution was filed on the death of the original defendant-tenant which occurred on 15.12.2008 and, therefore, on 15.02.2009 after the expiry of 90 days, the suit stood abated. 4. The same objections and contentions have been raised before this Court which were raised before the learned trial court and which have been negated by the learned trial court against the impugned order. 5. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the abatement is automatic and no application having been filed within the prescribed time the suit stood abated and the learned trial court has no jurisdiction to implead Madhusudan Soni, petitioner, as party under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. after the abatement. 6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions in the light of the provisions of Order 22, Rule 10A C.P.C. and the object of the amendment behind the introduction of the provisions of Order 22, Rule 10A C.P.C. 7. In the present case, as per the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner an intimation with regard to the death of the original tenant-defendant was furnished by the counsel for the defendant after the death of the original tenant. However, it is admitted that the aforesaid application did not contain any information as to who the legal representatives of the deceased tenant were. However, it is admitted that the aforesaid application did not contain any information as to who the legal representatives of the deceased tenant were. In the present matter since admittedly the defendant was not survived by any natural heir, the question would necessarily arise as to against whom the right to sue survives in the present matter in absence of there being any natural heir and this information that Madhusudan alias Jaigopal, the petitioner, had been adopted by the deceased tenant as his son. 8. In the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. which is available as Annexure-2 on record it has been disclosed that one Madhusudan has entered into the possession of the premises and he is in the possession of the premises in dispute after the death of the defendant-tenant, therefore, it has become necessary for impleading the said Madhusudan Soni as party to the suit for the effective decision in the suit. 9. Keeping in view the object behind the provisions of Rule 10A inserted by the Amending Act No. 104 of 1976 to the Code of Civil Procedure which was introduced to curb the delays in the progress of the trial due to the, substitution proceedings as a result of which the trial in the suits and hearing of the main appeals were delayed or unnecessary holding up of trials to determine whether the plaintiff had knowledge of the death of the defendant and who are his legal representatives, etc., therefore, the Legislature on the recommendations of the law commission in this behalf inserted Rule 10A C.P.C. in the Code of Civil Procedure making it obligatory for the counsel for the deceased defendant or respondent to furnish the information about the death of his client. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that Rule 10A C.P.C. only requires that intimation with regard to the death of the party be furnished and not as to who the legal representatives are. 11. So far as the above submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to say that Order 22 deals with the right of the plaintiff to continue the suit against the legal representatives against whom the right to sue survives. 11. So far as the above submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to say that Order 22 deals with the right of the plaintiff to continue the suit against the legal representatives against whom the right to sue survives. Providing merely an information with regard to the fact of death is not sufficient compliance of the Rule 10A C.P.C. unless and until the counsel furnishes the information with regard to the details of the persons on whom and against whom the right to sue survives and the information under Rule 10A C.P.C. and the object behind it would remain incomplete as the parties would still be labouring to inquire who are the legal representatives and find out as to upon whom and against whom the right to sue survives. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the impugned order passed on the application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. does not call for any interference and also the order allowing substitution under Order 22, Rule 4 C.P.C. 13. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.Revision Petition Dismissed. *******