ORDER : 1. However, notice was duly served to the respondents, nobody is appeared to contest this petition. 2. By way of preferring this petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 2.1.2019 passed below application Exh.45 by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Ranpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 93 of 2016 (Old Regular Civil Suit No. 23 of 2013) preferred by the respondent No. 1 for joining the present petitioners as the heirs of the deceased Original Defendant No. 2 without seeking any prayer for setting aside the abatement qua the deceased original defendant No. 2 and without filling any separate application or seeking relief for condonation of delay for the same. 3. The brief facts leading to the present case are as under: That, the respondent No. 1 preferred a Civil Suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 83 of 2013, against the respondent No. 2 on 19-07-2013 and predecessor of the petitioners praying for cancellation of sale-deed, declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land situated at Survey No. 3567/43 of Village Ranpur, Taluka Ranpur, District Ahmedabad. That, respondent No. 1 preferred an application below exhibit 5 praying for interim injunction against predecessors of the petitioners, however, the Civil Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the said application below Exhibit 5 preferred by the respondent No. 1 on 21-10-2014. That, pending present suit, upon death of the predecessor of the present petitioners on 1-9-2015, the learned advocate for the predecessor of the present petitioners filed a pursis vide Exh.25, on 11-02-2016 in the Suit disclosing the factum of the death of the original defendant No. 2-Bhupatbhai Shivabhai Chhaliya. Thereafter, upon constitution and the establishment of Civil Court at Ranpur such suit came to be transferred to the Court at Ranpur in the year 2016 and the same was registered and renumbered as Regular Civil Suit No. 93 of 2016. Thereafter, upon constitution and the establishment of Civil Court at Ranpur such suit came to be transferred to the Court at Ranpur in the year 2016 and the same was registered and renumbered as Regular Civil Suit No. 93 of 2016. Thereafter, despite the pursis filed by the advocate of the original defendant No. 2 on 11-02-2016 and despite having knowledge of the factum of the death of the original defendant No. 2, the Respondent No. 1-plaintiff, after lapse of about two and half years, preferred an application below Exhibit 45 for joining the present petitioners as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Original defendant No. 2, without seeking any prayer for setting aside abatement qua the deceased defendant No. 2 and without filing separate application or praying any relief to condone the delay caused in preferring the application, Exh.45. That, application below Exhibit 45, preferred by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner Nos. 1.1 and 1.4 filed their reply, Exh.50, on 5-12-2018 contending and objecting the application, Exh.45, on the ground that no prayer for setting aside abatement and condonation of delay having been prayed for by the respondent No. 1 in the application below Exhibit 45 and therefore, the same should be rejected. That, surprisingly, on 02-01-2019, after hearing the parties, learned trial Court allowed the application below Exhibit 45, preferred by the Respondent No. 1, without assigning any reason or findings in respect of the objections raised by the petitioner Nos. 1.1 and 1.4 in their reply. That, the trial Court has recorded and acknowledged the said objections in the order and further passed an order awarding cost to the petitioners for the delay caused in preferring the application by respondent No. 1 below Exhibit 45. Therefore, the present petition. 4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction not vested upon it by law and has acted illegally with material irregularity in passing the impugned order. Therefore, the present petition. 4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction not vested upon it by law and has acted illegally with material irregularity in passing the impugned order. That, the trial Court ought to have considered the fact of provision of Order 22, Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code in respect of the abatement of the proceedings qua the original deceased-defendant No. 2 as admittedly, no application for joining the present petitioners as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 2 was filed within a period of limitation as provided under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963. That, the lower Court ought to have considered that the respondent No. 1 has failed to file separate application seeking condonation of delay caused in joining the present Petitioners as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Original Defendant No. 2 and the respondent No. 1 is failed to show any cause in application below Exhibit 45 and has failed to seek any prayer for condonation of delay in the said application. That, the trial Court ought to have considered that the respondent No. 1 was in fact in knowledge of the factum of the death of the original defendant No. 2 since the year 2016, in view of the pursis at Exhibit 25. That, the trial Court ought to have considered that non filling of the application for joining the heirs of the deceased original defendant No. 2 within the period of Limitation as provided under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, present suit has automatically stood abated qua the said deceased original defendant No. 2 in view of the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure. That, the trial Court ought to have considered that the Respondent No. 1 has miserably failed to seek a prayer for setting aside the abatement qua the deceased original defendant No. 2 and accordingly has not complied with the provision of Order 22, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That, the trial Court ought not to have allowed the application below Exhibit 45 in absence of any prayer for condonation of delay as well as for setting aside abatement qua the deceased original defendant No. 2. That, the trial Court ought not to have allowed the application below Exhibit 45 in absence of any prayer for condonation of delay as well as for setting aside abatement qua the deceased original defendant No. 2. That, the trial Court has failed to assign any findings and reason in respect of the Objections and contentions raised by the petitioners before it although the same are recorded and acknowledged by the trial Court. That, the trial Court has failed to assign adequate and rational reason while passing the impugned order. That, trial Court has materially erred impliedly in condoning the delay caused in preferring the application below Exhibit 45 while passing an order of awarding cost for the same to the petitioners, particularly in absence of any sufficient cause shown by the Respondent No. 1 and in absence of any prayer to that effect. That, the trial Court ought to have considered that, in view of the settled position of law, in absence of any application or prayer seeking condonation of delay caused in joining the heirs of the deceased original defendant No. 2 as well as setting aside the abatement qua the same, the application below Exh.45 is not maintainable. That, the trial Court has materially erred in overlooking the Objections raised by the petitioners in their reply Exhibit 50, while passing the impugned order. That, the trial court ought to have rejected the application below exhibit 45 preferred by the respondent No. 1 in absence of any prayer for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement and in absence of any cause shown for condonation of the delay. That, the impugned order passed by the trial court is clearly, illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable and unreasonable and liable to be quashed and set aside by rejecting the application below Exhibit 45 preferred by the respondent No. 1. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in case of Makvana Udaji Jehaji vs. Makvana Parthiji Punaji, 2012 (3) GLR 2354 . 6. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in case of Makvana Udaji Jehaji vs. Makvana Parthiji Punaji, 2012 (3) GLR 2354 . 6. Having heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, it appears from the record that in the suit, pending before the trial Court a pursis Exh.25 was prayed on 11th February, 2016 by the petitioners inter-alia disclosing the factum of the death of the original defendant No. 2 namely Bhupatbhai Shivabhai Chhaliya and also produced a copy of the death certificate along the said pursis. The petitioners complied with provision of Order 22, Rule 10A of Civil Procedure Code. Thereafter, it appears that on establishing Civil Court at Ranpur, District Botad, the Civil Suit pending before the Civil Court Dhandhuka came to be transferred to the Civil Court, Ranpur in the year 2016 and it was registered as well as renumbered as Regular Civil Suit No. 93 of 2016. There is a reason to believe that despite having knowledge of the factum of the death of the original defendant No. 2, the respondent No. 1-plaintiff, after a lapse of 2 and ½ years preferred an application below Exh.45, on 29th August, 2018 with a request to join the present petitioners as legal heirs and representative of the deceased original defendant No. 2.No prayer was sought by the respondent No. 1 in her application below Exh.45 for setting aside the abatement for the deceased defendant No. 2 nor any separate application was preferred by her to condone the delay caused in preferring an application below Exh.45. Present petitioner filed their reply below Exh.50 on 5th December, 2018 specifically objecting the application, below Exh.45 on the ground that no prayer for setting aside the abatement and condonation of delay was prayed by the respondent No. 1 in the application below Exh.45 and therefore, the same was required to be rejected. However, learned trial Court after hearing the parties, on 2nd January, 2019 allowed the application Exh.45 preferred by the respondent No. 1, without assigning any reason or findings in respect of the objection raised by the petitioners below Exh.50. However, learned trial Court after hearing the parties, on 2nd January, 2019 allowed the application Exh.45 preferred by the respondent No. 1, without assigning any reason or findings in respect of the objection raised by the petitioners below Exh.50. It appears that the learned trial Court has recorded and acknowledge the said objection in the order and further passed an order awarding cost to the petitioners for delay caused in preferring the application below Exh.45 by the respondent No. 1, without there being any prayer from the petitioners. When specific provision was made as provided in Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, it may not be appropriate to resort to the general provision of Code of Civil Procedure to bring legal heirs on record. The valuable right accrues to the present petitioners and such a right cannot be ignored or interfere with lightly in the name of doing substantial justice to the party, as depriving a party of a lawful right created in the interest to administration of justice in absence of good grounds results in justice to the other party. Further law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigor and unless strong case is made out to condone the delay and sufficient cause has been shown delay is not required to be condoned under the guise of doing substantial justice and/or taking liberal view. It is admitted position that while submitting an application below Exh.45 by the respondent No. 1-original plaintiff, she neither prayed for setting aside the abatement nor submitted any application to condone the delay in bringing heirs of the deceased defendant No. 2 on record and/or in submitting the application for setting aside abatement and straightway an application was submitted permitting her to be brought on record as heirs and legal representative of the defendant No. 2. Therefore, the short question which is posted for consideration of this Court is whether in case where the application for bringing heirs of defendant No. 2 is made after the prescribed period of limitation i.e. after a period of 90 days from the date of death of defendant No. 2 whether such an application permitting the defendant No. 2, to brought on record as heirs and legal representatives of the defendant No. 2, without submitting an application for setting aside the abatement and/or without submitting any application and/or prayed to condone the delay in preferring such an application would be maintainable or not? Similar issue was dealt with by this Court in judgment rendered in case of Makvana Udaji Jehaji vs. Makvana Parthiji Punaji, 2012 (3) GLR 2354 wherein, this Court has observed as under: “6. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Naik AIR 1983 SC 676 , no specific order for abatement of proceedings under one or other provisions of Order 22 is envisaged and the abatement takes place on its own force by passage of time. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision that in fact, a specific order is necessary under Order 22, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the abatement. Under the circumstances as no steps were taken within a period of limitation to bring the heirs and legal representatives of original plaintiffs on record the suit stood automatically dismissed as having been abated, and therefore, unless and until any application is submitted by the heirs of sole plaintiff requesting to set aside the abatement with a further prayer to condone the delay in submitting the application and the Court is satisfied that a “sufficient cause” has been shown to condone the delay, the Court may condone the delay in submitting the application for bringing the heirs on record as well as the Court set aside the abatement by permitting the heirs of the plaintiff to be brought on record. In the present case, as stated above, neither any application for setting aside the abatement was submitted by the heirs of the sole plaintiff nor any application to condone the delay has been submitted, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court passed below Exh.165 straightway permitting the heirs of the original plaintiff to be brought on record is without jurisdiction and/or such application itself which was submitted in a suit which stood dismissed as having been abated automatically was not maintainable.” 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, as no application for setting aside the abatement qua defendant No. 2 was preferred by the respondent No. 1 nor any application for condonation of delay was made or prayed by the defendant No. 1 and straightway Exh.45 was submitted to bring legal heirs of the present petitioners on record of the defendant No. 2, the impugned order passed below Exh.45 by the trial Court permitting the respondent No. 1-defendant to bring legal heirs of the defendant No. 2 in absence of any prayer to set aside the abatement cannot be sustained and same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. For the reasons stated above, present petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 2.1.2019 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Ranpur below Exh.45 in Regular Civil Suit No. 93 of 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.