JUDGMENT 1. -This application though indicated as a restoration application is essentially an application seeking setting aside of abatement. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.108/1981, Prabhu Ram v. Jeewan Ram was filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.05.1981 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Hanumangarh, whereby, the suit filed by Jeewan Ram seeking specific performance of the contract was decreed. 3. During pendency of the appeal, on 13.02.1997 it was brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent Jeewan Ram has expired. Whereafter, though an application under Order 22, Rule 4 CPC was filed, the same was not supported by affidavit and, therefore, by order dated 10.12.1997, the appeal was dismissed as abated. 4. The present restoration application has been filed on 19.08.2010 under Order 22, Rule 4 CPC and Order 22, Rule 9 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for taking legal representatives of sole respondent on record and setting aside the abatement and for restoration of the appeal. 5. In the application, it is indicated that the sole respondent Jeewan Ram has expired on 18.10.1996. It is further indicated in the application as under:- "3. That however the appellant/applicant became a ascetic (Sadhu) about 20 years back and became a follower of Devanath and changed his name to Sewanath. The appellant left the village and therefore, he had no knowledge or information regarding the death of the respondent Jeevan Ram." 6. Based on the said averment in the application, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed claiming that the fact of death of respondent was not in the knowledge of the appellant and, therefore, application for bringing the legal representatives on record could not be filed. Based on the said averment in the application, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed claiming that the fact of death of respondent was not in the knowledge of the appellant and, therefore, application for bringing the legal representatives on record could not be filed. Entire basis of the application seeking condonation of delay is that the applicant had became a ascetic (Sadhu) and had left the Village and, therefore, the appellant had no knowledge of the death and the dismissal of the appeal by this Court on 10.12.1997, the appellant returned back to the Village in the month of July, 2010 and on about 17.07.2010 Kalu Ram met him and stated that he was the legal heir of Jeewan Ram and the land regarding which the case in this Court was going on, now belongs to him, when he came to know about the fact of death of sole respondent Jeewan Ram. 7. From the perusal of the application under Order 22, Rule 4 CPC and Order 22, Rule 9 CPC as well as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act an specific averment has been made in the applications that the applicant became a ascetic (Sadhu), however, in the application there is no averment whatsoever indicating that the appellant has joined back the worldly affairs i.e. left his life as a ascetic (Sadhu). 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir and Others, (1981) 3 SCC 689 , held and observed as under:- "31. One who enters into a religious order severs his connection with the members of his natural family. He is accordingly excluded from inheritance. Entrance to a religious order, is tantamount to civil death so as to cause a complete severance of his connection with his relations, as well as with his property." (Emphasis supplied) 9. From the above observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the fact that the appellant claims to have entered into a religious order, resulted in his severing his connection with the members of his natural family, tantamount to civil death and complete severance of his connection with his relations, as well as with his property. 10. From the above observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the fact that the appellant claims to have entered into a religious order, resulted in his severing his connection with the members of his natural family, tantamount to civil death and complete severance of his connection with his relations, as well as with his property. 10. As noticed hereinbefore, there is no averment in the application seeking to contend that any time subsequent to his entering the religious order, he has abandoned the said status and, therefore, the appellant having suffered a civil death, the restoration application at his instance is not maintainable. 11. In view of the above discussion, the application filed by the appellant Prabhu Ram seeking condonation of delay and restoration application are dismissed as not maintainable.Application dismissed. *******