ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 26/10/2004 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior and order dated 10/01/2001 passed by Fifth Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior was affirmed in Civil Suit No. 29-B/2000 filed by the petitioner was dismissed as abated. 2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that, the petitioner filed a civil suit on 10/12/1994 against Smt. Leela Bai for recovery of loan amount. It appears that on 13/01/1995, Smt. Leela Bai sole defendant expired, but no application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. was filed within a period of 90 days. Thereafter, it appears that on 31/07/1995, the petitioner filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. thereby disclosing the names of the legal representatives of deceased Leela Bai. However, in this application the date of death of Leela Bai was not mentioned. It appears that in compliance of order dated 13/03/1996, the petitioner filed an application on 26/06/1996 mentioning that the date of death of the sole defendant as 25/04/1995. 3. The respondents filed their response to the application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C and pleaded that the sole defendant Leela Bai has expired on 13/01/1995 and the application for bringing her legal representatives on record has been filed after six months of her death and it was claimed that the sole defendant Leela Bai did not die on 25/04/1995 as disclosed by the petitioner in its application dated 26/06/1996. 4. The said reply was filed on 13/08/1996. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. for setting aside the abatement. An application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed on 03/12/1996 for condoning the delay in filing an application for setting aside the abatement. 5. The Trial Court by order dated 10/01/2001 rejected the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. and as a consequence also application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. was also rejected merely on the ground that the petitioner has failed to disclose the bonafide reasons for not filing the application within a period of limitation and accordingly, the suit has abated. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10/01/2001 passed by Fifth Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior in Regular Civil Suit No. 29-B/2000, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was registered as Miscellaneous Appeal No. 06/2001 and the Appellate Court i.e. Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior by impugned order dated 26/10/2004 dismissed the appeal. 6. Challenging the orders passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by the counsel for he petitioner that no application under Order 22 Rule 10-A C.P.C. was ever filed and no information was ever given by the counsel for the defendant and, therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity to gather the information regarding the death of sole defendant. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a bank/institution and, therefore, also it was not possible to have updated information about the death of sole defendant. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the death of the defendant, it immediately filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. on 21/07/1995 because as per the information received by the petitioner, the deceased had died on 25/04/1995. However, only after the respondents entered their appearance, they disclosed that the deceased/sole defendant had died on 13/01/1995 and as soon as that information was disclosed, the petitioner filed an application under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. and thereafter under Section 5 of Limitation Act. It is submitted that the provisions of Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. and under Section 5 of Limitation Act should be given liberal meaning. Even assuming that the sole defendant had died on 13/01/1995, the petitioner had a period of 90 days to file an application for bringing her legal representatives on record. The application was filed on 21/07/1995 i.e. after six months of the death of the sole defendant. After deducting the period of three months, which has been provided for filing an application for bringing the legal representatives, it is clear that there was only a delay of three months in filing an application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. It is true that after the expiry of 90 days, abatement of proceedings takes place by force of law, but still a formal order is required to be passed. Thus, for the purpose of condonation of delay, there was only delay of one month and eight days in filing an application for setting aside of abatement. Thus, for the purpose of condonation of delay, there was only delay of one month and eight days in filing an application for setting aside of abatement. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court should have adopted a lenient view in the matter. 7. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent has supported the reasoning assigned of the appellate Court as well as Trial Court. 8. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. 9. For the sake of convenience following dates are important: (1) 10/12/1994 - Suit was filed. (2) 13/01/1995 - Sole defendant died (as claimed by the respondents and accepted by the Courts below). (3) 25/04/1995 - Date of death of sole defendant (as claimed by the petitioner). (4) 13/08/1996 - The respondents filed their reply to application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. and for the first time the date of death of the sole defendant was disclosed as 13/01/1995. (5) 22/11/1996 - An application under Order 22 Rule 9 of C.P.C. was filed. (6) 03/12/1996 - An application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed for condonation of delay in filing an application for setting aside the abatement. (7) 10/01/2001 - The suit was formally dismissed as abated. 10. From the above mentioned dates, it is clear that the sole deceased died within a month from the date of institution of civil suit. It is not known as to whether the deceased was served prior to her death or not. Since, no application under Order 22 Rule 10A C.P.C. was ever filed, therefore, it appears that the deceased must have expired even prior to service of notice. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the death of sole defendant, if filed an application for condonation of delay and the respondent in its reply to the application had also accepted that the application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. was filed after six months of death of sole defendant. It is true that the abatement is an automatic consequence which takes place by force of law, but a formal order is also required to be passed. 11. Before the said formal order could be passed, the petitioner filed an application under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. and under Section 5 Limitation Act. It is true that the abatement is an automatic consequence which takes place by force of law, but a formal order is also required to be passed. 11. Before the said formal order could be passed, the petitioner filed an application under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. and under Section 5 Limitation Act. Thus, on the day when the formal order of abatement was passed i.e. 10/01/2001, the Court was under obligation to decide the application for condonation of delay in filing an application for setting aside the abatement, an application under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. as well as application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. It is not out of place to mention here that the petitioner is a bank which functions with the help of its functionaries. It is possible that the petitioner might have come to know about the death of sole defendant only after the return of the summons (however, there is nothing on record to give such a finding) but one thing is clear that the application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. was filed after six months of date of death of the sole defendant and three months and 8 days after the automatic abatement took place. Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed within one month and 10 days after the period for filing an application for setting aside abatement had expired. Thus, the delay was not such which may indicate negligence on the part of the petitioner. 12. Under these circumstances, the Courts below should have adopted a lenient view and should have condoned the delay in filing an application for setting aside abatement and as well as should have also set aside the abatement of the suit. Under these circumstances, both orders dated 26/10/2004 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior and order dated 10/01/2001 passed by Fifth Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior passed in Civil Suit No. 29-B/2000 are hereby set aside. The delay in filing the application for setting aside the abatement is hereby condoned. Similarly, for the above-mentioned reasons, the abatement of civil suit is also set aside. 13. As a consequence thereof, application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioner is directed to carry out the amendment within time, which shall be fixed by the Trial Court in this regard. Similarly, for the above-mentioned reasons, the abatement of civil suit is also set aside. 13. As a consequence thereof, application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioner is directed to carry out the amendment within time, which shall be fixed by the Trial Court in this regard. As a consequence, the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law. 14. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 27/10/2022. If any of the party fails to appear on the said date, then under natural consequence of absence of the said party would follow. Since, the suit was filed in the year 1994 and 30 long years have passed and suit has not reached to the stage of written statement also, therefore, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one and half years from 27/10/2022. 15. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. 16. No order as to costs.