ORDER A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J. 1. This writ petition is by the defendants in O.S. 303/2011 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,), Bailhongal, sitting at Kittur. Suit for passing a decree of declaration and for grant of consequential reliefs was instituted on 16.11.2011. Written statement contesting the suit was filed on 20.1.2012. Smt. Gangawwa Chandrashekhar Hiremath/sole plaintiff, died on 16.10.2012. In that behalf, on 31.1.2013, respondents filed 2 applications: (i) to set aside the abatement of the suit; and (ii) to permit them to come on record as the L.Rs. of the deceased. The applications have been allowed. 2. Mr. Sangram S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the L.Rs. of the deceased plaintiff having not filed the application to come on record within 90 days, they were required to file separate application for condonation of delay, along with the applications under O. 22 Rule 3 and O. 22 Rule 9 CPC. By placing reliance on the decision in the case of Sri T. Subba Rao v. Sri T. Narasimha Rao, ILR 2008 Karnataka 2768, he contended that the Trial Court has committed procedural impropriety and illegality in allowing the said applications. 3. Rule 3 of O. 22 CPC prescribes the procedure in case of death of one of the several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff and the right to sue survives. The Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. Sub-rule (2) of R.3 makes it clear that, where, within the time limited by law, no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate, so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and, on the application of the defendant, the Court may award to him the costs, which he may have incurred in defending the suit, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff. 4. Under Article 120 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 ("the Act" for short) the period of limitation to come on record of the suit by the legal representative/s of the deceased plaintiff is 90 days from the date of death of the plaintiff. Article 121 provides that, for an application under the Code, for an order to set aside the abatement, the period of limitation is 60 days from the date of abatement. Article 121 provides that, for an application under the Code, for an order to set aside the abatement, the period of limitation is 60 days from the date of abatement. 5. It is not in dispute that the sole plaintiff died on 16.10.2012. The application was required to be filed within 90 days from that date. Since such an application was not filed, the suit abated on 15.1.2013. An application to set aside the abatement along with another application to come on record as the legal representatives of the deceased was filed on 31.1.2013, which was within 60 days of the date, the suit abated. In the circumstances, the only question for consideration is, whether a separate application under S. 5 of the Act, seeking condonation of delay also should have been filed along with the applications under O. 22 R. 3 and O. 22 R. 9 CPC? 6. In the case of Alphonso Nazareth v. Xavier Dias and others AIR 1971 Mysore 79, respondent No. 1 before the Civil Judge, died on 7.2.1967 and that the appellant filed the applications on 5.6.1967, within 150 days from the date of death. However, the Civil Judge dismissed the application filed under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, holding that there was no sufficient ground for condonation of delay and further held that the application for setting aside the abatement of the appeal and the application to bring on record the legal representative of the deceased do not survive, as the appeal had already abated. When the order was challenged in a Miscellaneous First Appeal by contending that the Court below fell into an error in thinking that an application under S.5 of the Act was necessary for condoning the delay in making the application for setting aside the abatement, it has been held as follows: "35. I think Mr. Holla is right in contending that the learned Civil Judge fell into an error by overlooking that the application made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not arise for consideration at all and that what he had to consider was whether the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from making in time the application for the substitution of the legal representatives of deceased respondent 1." 7. In the case of Ratna alias Ratnavati (Smt) v. Syndicate Bank and others, (1995) 1 SCC 407 , the Apex Court has held as follows: "7. Considered from this perspective, we are of the considered view that the High Court was right in its conclusion that there is no need to make an application within the period of limitation as provided under Articles 120 and 121 of the Limitation Act to bring the L.Rs. of deceased defendant on record and to seek to set aside the abatement after the expiry of 90 days." 8. In the case of Smt. Shamavathi and others v. Smt. Appi S. Pergade and others, ILR 2010 Karnataka 140, question No. 2 raised for consideration was: "(2) If the answer to the above question is that the period of limitation starts from the actual date of death and if the proceedings have abated, whether the application for setting aside the abatement has to be accompanied by an application for the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?" And the said question was answered as follows: "Total period of limitation taken together under Article 120 and 121is 150 days. Hence after lapse of 150 days from the date of death, the plaintiffs or the petitioners have to necessarily invoke Section 5of the Limitation Act. Thus, I answer the second question by holding that an application for the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is certainly necessary when the application for setting aside the abatement is filed beyond 150 days from the date of death of the defendant. If no such application is made, the abatement stands. If no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed, mere filing of applications to set aside the abatement and impleading the legal representatives are not sufficient. An application to condone the delay explaining the reasons for delay must also be filed." 9. In the case of Mithailal Dalsangar Singh and others v. Annabai Devram Kini and others, (2003) 10 SCC 691 , Apex Court has held that, a simple prayer for bringing the L.Rs. on record, without specific prayer for setting aside abatement, may in substance be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement. In the case of Mithailal Dalsangar Singh and others v. Annabai Devram Kini and others, (2003) 10 SCC 691 , Apex Court has held that, a simple prayer for bringing the L.Rs. on record, without specific prayer for setting aside abatement, may in substance be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement. It has been further held that the prayer for bringing the L.Rs., on record, if allowed, would have the effect of setting aside the abatement, though not asked for in so many words, is in effect being actually asked for and is necessarily implied. It has been observed that, too technical or pedantic an approach in such cases is not called for, since the courts have to adopt a justice-oriented approach dictated by the uppermost consideration, that, ordinarily, a litigant ought not to be denied an opportunity of having a lis determined on merits, unless he has, by gross negligence, deliberate inaction or something akin to misconduct, disentitled himself from seeking the indulgence of the Court. Apex Court has further observed that the opinion of the trial Judge allowing a prayer for setting aside abatement and his findings on the question of availability of 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of Order 22 and of Section5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deserves to be given weight, and once arrived at, would not, normally be interfered with by superior jurisdiction. 10. In the case of T. Subba Rao (supra), the learned Single Judge, without noticing the declaration of law by the Apex Court, in the decisions, noticed supra, held that, no application having been filed to bring the L.Rs. of the deceased on record within 90 days, the appeal as having abated. Though an application was filed subsequently for setting aside of abatement, finding that there being delay in making the application, held that, unless delay is condoned, the application cannot be entertained. The view taken by the learned Single Judge being contrary to Articles 120 and 121 of the Act and the statement of law made by the Apex Court, in the decisions noticed supra, the contentions urged by Mr. Sangram S. Kulkarni, should fail. 11. The starting point of limitation for filing an application to bring the L.Rs. The view taken by the learned Single Judge being contrary to Articles 120 and 121 of the Act and the statement of law made by the Apex Court, in the decisions noticed supra, the contentions urged by Mr. Sangram S. Kulkarni, should fail. 11. The starting point of limitation for filing an application to bring the L.Rs. of the deceased party on record is the date of death of the party to the suit, which abates on the expiry of 90 days from the date of death of the party. However, within 60 days from the date of abatement, an application under O. 22 R. 9 CPC, to set aside the abatement can be filed. In case of delay in filing such applications, the party is required to file a separate application under S. 5 of the Act, seeking condonation of delay, making out sufficient cause for not making the applications within the time limit prescribed under Articles 120 and 121 of Schedule to the Act. In my considered view, there is no need to file an application under S. 5 of the Act, if, the applications under O. 22 R. 3 or 4 and under O. 22 R. 9 are filed, within a period of 150 days from the date of death of a party to the suit. 12. In the said view of the matter, the impugned order does not suffer from any procedural impropriety or illegality. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is rejected.