JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. During the pendency of RSA No.489 of 2007 before this Court, corespondent No.1, Bhag Chand expired, on 13.11.2017. On 1.6.2018, a disclosure was made before this Court qua the demise, of, the afore co-respondent No.1, hence occurring, during the pendency of the instant appeal before this Court, (a) and obviously thereat, the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants, was awakened, vis-a-vis, the afore trite factum, and, concomitantly, was enjoined to, within three weeks, hence, take the requisite steps. However, for, want of requisite steps being taken, within the afore period, by the applicants/appellants, and, furthermore, with the counsel for the appellants/applicants, rather thereat pleading no instructions, thereupon, the afore RSA, was, hence dismissed as abated. 2. The afore order of 3.10.2018, dismissing, for the reasons aforestated, the appeal as abated, is, obviously a formal order qua hence, the appeal being dismissed, as abated. Consequently, the effect thereof, is, to be gauged, in, the face of the requisite expostulations, of law, borne in a verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex, Court in a case titled as Mangluram Dewangan vs. Surendra Singh and others, reported in (2011)12 SCC 773 , the relevant paragraph No.10 whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “10.A combined reading of the several provisions of Order 22 of the Code makes the following position clear: (a) When the sole plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives, on an application made in that behalf, the court shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be brought on record and proceed with the suit. (b) If the court holds that the right to sue does not survive on the death of the plaintiff, the suit will abate under Rule 1 of Order 22 of the Code. (c) Even where the right to sue survives, if no application is made for making the legal representative a party to the suit, within the time limited by law (that is a period of 90 days from the date of death of the plaintiff prescribed for making an application to make the legal representative a party under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963), the suit abates, as per Rule 3 (2) of Order 22 of the Code. (d) Abatement occurs as a legal consequence of (i) court holding that the right to sue does not survive; or (ii) no application being made by any legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to come on record and continue the suit. Abatement is not dependant upon any formal order of the court that the suit has abated. (e) Even though a formal order declaring the abatement is not necessary when the suit abates, as the proceedings in the suit are likely to linger and will not be closed without a formal order of the court, the court is usually to make an order recording that the suit has abated, or dismiss the suit by reason of abatement under Order 22 of the Code. (f) Where a suit abates or where the suit is dismissed, any person claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff may apply for setting aside the abatement or dismissal of the suit under Order 22 Rule 9 (2) of the Code. If sufficient cause is shown, the court will set aside the abatement or dismissal. If however such application is dismissed, the order dismissing such an application is open to challenge in an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (k) of the Code. (g) A person claiming to be the legal representative cannot make an application under rule 9 (2) of order 22 for setting aside the abatement or dismissal, if he had already applied under order 22 Rule 3 for being brought on record within time and his application had been dismissed after an enquiry under Rule 5 of Order 22, on the ground that he is not the legal representative.” 3. A perusal of the afore extracted paragraph, unfolds, qua therein, the, apt principle (s) standing enshrined, qua (a) there existing variegated contingency (ies), upon, demise of the litigant concerned, during, the pendency of the suit or appeal before the court concerned, (b) and, upon the litigant concerned, being provenly survived, by his legal representative, and, his estate hence being sufficiently represented, thereupon, the court (s), for, ensuring the continuation of the lis, hence, ordering for substitution of the deceased litigant, by his legal heirs, (c) and, when the right to sue is evidently not surviving, the court concerned, is enjoined to dismiss the suit, as abated, under Rule 1 of Order 22 of the CPC, (d) and, further, upon, the right to sue surviving, and, the requisite application, being not instituted, within the statutorily prescribed period of limitation, thereupon, the suit/appeal rather abating, in consonance with the mandate of Order 22, Rule 3 (2) of the CPC, (e) and, in the afore contingency no formal order of abatement, being required to be made by the court concerned. 4. However, hereat, for preempting prolongation of the proceedings, though no formal order of abatement, was, required to be made, for, hence this Court on 3.10.2018, rather proceeding to dismiss, the appeal, as abated, yet, the afore formal order, is, made by this Court. However, subsequent to the order made, on 3.10.2018, the applicants/appellants, through, their counsel instituted the instant application, before this Court, application whereof, is, cast under the provisions of Order 22, Rules, 4 and 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC, and, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, wherethrough, the, relief for setting aside the order, made by this Court, on 3.10.2018, is hence strived. The invocation of the afore provisions of law, by the applicant/appellant, for hence, begetting reversal of the apposite order made by this Court, is, though an aptly recoursed remedy. However, for an affirmative order being made, upon, the instant application, the statutory ingredients, borne in Order 22, Rule 9 CPC, are required to beget their satiation, provisions whereof read as under:- 9. Effect of abatement or dismissal.-- (1) Where a suit abates or is dismissed under this Order, no fresh suit shall be brought on the same cause of action. Effect of abatement or dismissal.-- (1) Where a suit abates or is dismissed under this Order, no fresh suit shall be brought on the same cause of action. (2) The plaintiff or the person claiming to be the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or the assignee or the receiver in the case of an insolvent plaintiff may apply for an order to set aside the abatement or dismissal; and if it is proved that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from continuing the suit, the Court shall set aside the abatement or dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit. 3. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877) shall apply to application under sub-rule (2)." (a) statutory ingredients whereof, are, embedded in the factum of the plaintiff or the legal representative (s), of the deceased plaintiff, being empowered, to make, the requisite application as hereat the instant application has been instituted, rather by the appellant/applicant/defendant, wherethrough, they strived to establish, that, he/they was/were prevented, from, a sufficient cause, to, hence, continue the instant appeal. Even, if, the afore statutory right, is vested in the plaintiff, yet when an appeal arising, from a decree made in a suit, is , a continuation, of the suit, thereupon, the defendants' appeal renders him/them, also empowered, to, draw leverage therefrom, only, for the statutory purpose, of, continuing the appeal. In case, a contra therewith construction, is, meted thereto, or the afore right, though vested in a plaintiff, is not extended, in the afore referred scenario, to the defendant, (b) thereupon, immense hardship would ensue, vis-a-vis, the unsuccessful defendant, and, their/his appeal would be jettisoned. Nowat, the secondary ingredient constituted therein is also though pleaded, yet the afore pleadings, are required to be satiated by prima facie material, as may exist hence in support thereof, whereupon, alone the appellant's endeavour rather would succeed. 5. Nowat, the secondary ingredient constituted therein is also though pleaded, yet the afore pleadings, are required to be satiated by prima facie material, as may exist hence in support thereof, whereupon, alone the appellant's endeavour rather would succeed. 5. Even though, this Court on 10.03.2018, apart from the factum, of, (a) the appropriate remedy being not availed within the requisite period, (b) had also for want of meteing, of, instructions by the appellant to his/their counsel, hence proceeded to make a formal order, rather dismissing the appellant's appeal, as abated, (c) yet the afore secondary reason may not stand in the way of this Court, proceeding to allow, the instant application, as dehors the afore secondary reason, the application at hand, does, ad nauseam make explicit echoings, on an affidavit sworn by the applicant, qua (a) lack of responses, to communications made by his counsel, to him, rather emanating from the factum of the applicant, being a rustic villager, and, his not holding the requisite ability, to comprehend, the, letter (s) scribed in English, (b) and, the applicant receiving the apt communication, from, a counsel other than the counsel engaged by him, namely, Mr. Bimal Gupta, hence, the requisite responses not emanating from him/her, (c) and the applicant's/appellant's wife being beset with tuberculosis, (d) and, his son's leg being amputated, hence, cumulatively, all the afore working against, hence, responses being meted, by the applicant, to the apt communications made to him, by a counsel other than Mr. Bimal Gupta, the latter being his/their duly engaged counsel. The afore submission, is, supported, by an affidavit, and, when Mr. Bimal Gupta, was designated as Senior Advocate, and, hence a necessity arose, for, (e) a power of attorney being executed afresh by the applicant/appellant, vis-a-vis, the counsel concerned, and, when it is also pleaded, on affidavit qua, upon, fresh court notices, in RSA No.553 of 2007, being received by the applicant, and, thereafter the applicant visiting, the office, of Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate on 16.12.2018, (f) whereat, an intimation was made to him by Mr. Bimal Gupta, about the necessity of filing of a fresh power of attorney, and, also qua necessity for consequential steps being taken, on demise of Bhag Chand, (g) and, when since the acquisition of knowledge, by the applicant, on 16.12.2018, the instant application has been filed within limitation, hence the requisite delay is condoned. Bimal Gupta, about the necessity of filing of a fresh power of attorney, and, also qua necessity for consequential steps being taken, on demise of Bhag Chand, (g) and, when since the acquisition of knowledge, by the applicant, on 16.12.2018, the instant application has been filed within limitation, hence the requisite delay is condoned. In aftermath, also when the afore enunciated, reasons, as cast, in the instant application, are supported by an affidavit, thereupon, they also rather constitute valid, tangible, as well as, well merited statutory grounds, for, recalling the order made, on 3.10.2018. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant application is allowed. Consequently, the order of 3.10.2018, hence, dismissing the appeal as abated, is, recalled, and, the abatement if any is also set aside. The registry is directed to restore the RSA to its original number. The legal representatives of deceased Bhag Chand, as enumerated in paragraph No.3 of the application, are, ordered to be substituted in his place. Amended memo of parties be filed within two weeks from today. On steps being taken within one week from today, notices to the newly added co-respondents be issued, returnable within four weeks thereafter. List after completion of service.