JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 08.04.2016 passed by learned Munsiff No.1, Cachar at Silchar, in Title Suit No.599/2006. By that order the learned trial Court rejected an application for substitution of the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.3(2) of the aforesaid suit. The plaintiff having come to know about the death of defendant-respondent No.3(2) filed an application for substitution without disclosing the date of death of the deceased respondent. But in course of consideration of the application it came to light that the application had been filed after the suit had abated as against the non-impleaded legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.3(2). Since no application for setting aside abatement or for condonation of delay was filed either along with the application for substitution of legal heirs of deceased respondent No.3(2) the learned Munsiff rejected the prayer in entirety. Challenging the validity of the order the present revision petition has been filed. 3. Having heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the materials available on record being part of the revision petition I find that the learned Munsiff has not committed any jurisdictional error in holding that plaintiff was duty bound to file an application for setting aside abatement. The abatement takes place automatically by operation of law. Whether plaintiff was aware about the death of a particular defendant or not, the abatement takes place after expiry of the statutory period. No formal order needs to be passed for abatement of a suit as against non-impleaded legal heirs of deceased respondent. In the case in hand, according to Mr. Dhar, respondent No.3(2) before his death was served of notice of the suit and he had entered appearance through a learned counsel but the learned counsel did not discharge his burden vested under Order XXII Rule 10A of the CPC and did not inform the Court about the date of death and the names and address of the legal heirs of the said deceased defendant-respondent. Under such circumstances, plaintiff made enquiry with his limited scope and then filed the application for substitution. According to Mr. Under such circumstances, plaintiff made enquiry with his limited scope and then filed the application for substitution. According to Mr. Dhar, the application was filed within a period of two months from the date of process server’s report which revealed the fact as to death of defendant No.3(2). Be that as it may, whether plaintiff was aware about the date of death or not the abatement takes place automatically and so it is necessary to file an application for setting aside abatement. 4. In view of the peculiar facts stated in the present case in regard to failure of the learned engaged counsel of the deceased defendant No.3(2), the revision petition is disposed of giving liberty to the plaintiff to file a fresh application for substitution accompanied by an application for setting aside abatement as well as condonation of delay. This is because no specific order for abatement of a proceeding under one or the other provision of Order XXII is envisaged, the abatement takes place on its own force by passage of time. In fact, a specific order is necessary under Order XXII Rule 9 of the CPC for setting aside the abatement. This law is laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Naik and others vs. Mst. Hanubala Devi and others, reported in AIR 1983 SC 676 p.5.