JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Adnan Ahmad for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Civil Judge(Senior Division), Unnao dated 29.5.2006 and the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Unnao dated 31.3.2014. 2. By the impugned order the Court below has allowed the application under Order IX, Rule 4, C.P.C. and set aside the abatement caused for not taking steps for filing a substitution application within time due to death of the sole plaintiff. 3. One Dr. Heera Lal filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 284 of 1992) before the Court below. Dr. Heera Lal was murdered on 3.8.1993 and thereafter the suit was dismissed on 30.3.1994. Thereafter Gyanwati and others respondents-3 to 7 filed an application under Order IX, Rule 4, C.P.C.(registered as Misc. Case No. 151 of 1996) for setting aside the order dated 30.3.1994 and restoring the suit to its original number alongwith an application for condonation of delay. It may be mentioned here that the contesting respondents have also filed an application under Order XXII, Rule 9, C.P.C., which was got dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, the application under Order IX, Rule 4, C.P.C. was heard by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), who by the impugned order dated 29.5.2006 held that as the contesting respondents have stated that they had no knowledge of the suit filed by Dr. Heera Lal as such the application could not be filed within time after dismissal of the suit in default. In such circumstances the application under Order IX, Rule 4, C.P.C. was within time from the date of the knowledge. He, accordingly, set aside the order dated 30.3.1994 on the cost of  Rs. 300/- and restored the case to its original number and in exercise of his suo motu power he set aside the abatement, if any. The petitioner filed a revision from the aforesaid order which has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge by order dated 31.3.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that Article 122 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides 30 days limitation for restoring the suit dismissed in default and the limitation will run from the date of dismissal of the suit and not from the date of knowledge. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that Article 122 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides 30 days limitation for restoring the suit dismissed in default and the limitation will run from the date of dismissal of the suit and not from the date of knowledge. The Court below has illegally held that the limitation will run from the date of knowledge and while rejecting the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the Court below has committed an illegality to treat the application within time. He further submits that Dr. Heera Lal died on 3.8.1993 and 90 days limitation has been provided for filing an application for substitution under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and as no substitution application was filed within 90 days, the suit was abated under Order XXII, Rule 3(2), C.P.C. The application for setting aside the abatement under Order XXII, Rule 9, C.P.C. is required to be filed within another 60 days under Article 121 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and since the application under Order XXII, Rule 9, C.P.C. was got dismissed by the contesting respondents as not pressed as such there being no application on the record it was not proper for the Civil Judge (Senior Division) to set aside the abatement in exercising suo motu power. The order passed by the Civil Judge (Senor Division) dated 29.5.2006 is illegal. The revision of the petitioner has been dismissed although the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) was liable to be set aside in the revision. 5. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. 6. Section 146 of the C.P.C. provides that legal representatives of the deceased party can take proceeding which can be taken by the party himself. The contesting respondents claimed to be the legal representatives of Dr. Heera Lal and have right to file an application under Order IX, Rule 4, C.P.C. for restoring the suit to its original number and they have also right to file an application under Order XXII, Rule 9, C.P.C. for setting aside abatement and they have in fact filed these application. Heera Lal and have right to file an application under Order IX, Rule 4, C.P.C. for restoring the suit to its original number and they have also right to file an application under Order XXII, Rule 9, C.P.C. for setting aside abatement and they have in fact filed these application. At present under some confusion the application under Order XXII, Rule 9, C.P.C. was dismissed as not pressed although the application ought to have been decided alongwith the application under Order IX, Rule 4, C.P.C. Since the finding has been recorded by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) that the legal representatives of Dr. Heera Lal had no knowledge of the pendency of the suit, therefore, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay as well as setting aside abatement. Civil Judge (Senior Division) under some confusion rejected the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act although the delay ought to have been condoned. The impugned order by which the application under Order IX, Rule 4, C.P.C. has been rightly allowed as there was sufficient ground for condoning the delay and in the same way abatement has also been rightly set aside. The impugned order do not cause any material prejudice to the petitioner. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed.