ORDER : The civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/1st defendant questioning the docket order dated 07.03.2013 passed in I.A. No. 2233 of 2012 in O.S. No. 20 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Vizianagaram, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs under Order XXII Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., praying the Court to set aside the order dated 08.12.2008 dismissing the suit in O.S. No.20 of 2007 as abated against the 1st plaintiff, was allowed. 2. Sri. V. Srikantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on perusal of the docket order dated 07.03.2013 passed in I.A.No.2233 of 2012 in O.S. No. 20 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Vizianagaram, shows that it is totally noon speaking order and the same ought not have been allowed after a lapse of four years without there being any delay petition in filing the application seeking to set aside the abatement order. 3. On the other hand, Sri. G.V.S. Kishore kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the order impugned while relying on section 74 and 77 of The Indian Trusts Act, 1982 (for short, “the Act”). He would further urge that the very order of abatement dated 08.12.2008 itself is misconceived and as such there is no illegality or error committed by the Court below in passing the order impugned. Sections 73,74 and 77 of the Act read as under:- “73. Appointment of new trustees on death, etc.- Whenever any person appointed a trustee disclaims, or any trustee, either original or substituted, dies, or is for a continuous period of six months absent from 1[India], or leaves 1 [India] for the purposed of residing abroad, or is declared an insolvent, or desires to be discharged from the trust, or refuses or becomes, in the opinion of a principal Civil Court or original jurisdiction, unfit or personally incapable to act in the trust, or accepts in inconsistent trust, a new trustee may be appointed in his price by- (a) the person nominated for that purpose by the instrument or trust (if any), or 1. Subs. by the A.O. 1950 for “the Provinces”. Subs. by the A.O. 1950 for “the Provinces”. (b) if there be no such person, or no such person able and willing to act, the author of the trust if he be alive and competent to contract, or the surviving or continuing trustees or trustee for the time being, or legal representative of the last surviving and continuing trustee, or (with the consent of the Court) the retiring trustees, if they all retire simultaneously, or (with the like consent) the last retiring trustee. Every such appointment shall be by writing under the hand of the person making it. On an appointment of a new trustee the number of trustees may be increased. The Official Trustee may, with his consent and by the order of the Court, be appointed under this section, in any case in which only one trustee is to be appointed and such trustee is to be the sole trustee. The provisions of this section relative to a trustee who is dead include the case of a person nominated trustee in a will but dying before the testator, and those relative to a continuing trustee include a refusing or retiring trustee if willing to act in the execution of the power. “74. Appointment by Court:- Whenever any such vacancy or disqualification occurs and it is found impracticable to appoint a new trustee under section 73, the beneficiary may, without instituting a suit, apply by petition to a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for the appointment of a trustee or a new trustee, and the Court may appoint a trustee or a new trustee accordingly. Rule for selecting new trustees. Rule for selecting new trustee.- In appointing new trustees, the court shall shave regard (a) to the wishes of the author of the trust as expressed in or to be inferred from the instrument of trust; (b) to the wishes of the person, if any, empowered to appoint new trustees; (c) to the question whether the appointment will promote or impede the execution of the trust; and (d) where there are more beneficiaries than one, to the interests of all such beneficiaries. 77. 77. Trust how extinguished.- A trust is extinguished— (a) when its purpose is completely fulfilled; or (b) when its purpose becomes unlawful; or (c) when the fulfillment of its purpose becomes impossible by destruction of the trust- property or otherwise; or (d) when the trust, being revocable, is expressly revoked.” 4. It is not dispute that the suite is filed by the Trust represented by its Chairman and six others, who are all the trustees at the relevant point of time for delivery of the physical possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs for carrying on the founder’s intention and for the relief of permanent injunction, alleging that the defendants are in illegal and anauthorised occupation of the trust property. The Chairman though the fact the death of the Chairman of the Trust was brought to the notice of the Court below, an order of abatement dated 08.12.2008 appear to have been passed as against the 1st plaintiff. In the first place, it is to be noticed that the very abatement order dated 08.12.2008 is misconceived in law inasmuch as the trust would be extinguished only in the circumstances mentioned in Section 77 of the Act. 5. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that the Trust has been extinguished and the trust would come to an end on the death of the Trustee or the Chairman. As a matter of fact, Sections 73 and 74 of the Act negates such interpretation. Further, in view of Section 92 read with Order XXXI Rule 1 of CPC, an institution like Trust may be represented by a trustee/executor/administrator and in this case as on the date of filing of the suit, the trust was being represented by the then Chairman Immidisetti Narasimnga Rao, Merely because the Chairman had passed away, it cannot be said that the plaintiff trust has got extinguished. At best on behalf of the 1st Plaintiff, an authorized person to represent him may have to be substituted by following due process of law and an application may be required to be filed by the Trust. In that view of the matter, the very order of abatement dated 08.12.2008 is not in order and the question of seeking setting aside of such order itself is under misunderstanding of the provisions of the Act and procedure contemplated. In that view of the matter, the very order of abatement dated 08.12.2008 is not in order and the question of seeking setting aside of such order itself is under misunderstanding of the provisions of the Act and procedure contemplated. In that view of the matter, I see no reasons to interfere with the order impugned. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision petition, shall stand closed.