ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, questioning the correctness of Order dated 09.04.2019 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta in I.A. No. 01 of 2018 in O.S. No. 51 of 2006. 2. These revision petitioners had filed I.A. No. 01 of 2018 before the learned trial Court under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking for their impleadment and the petition also contains the consequential amendments that could be brought in the plaint. Learned trial Court by the impugned Order dismissed the said petition and therefore this revision. Respondent Nos. 1 to 26 in this revision are the plaintiffs in the suit. Respondent Nos. 27 to 31 in this revision are the defendants in the suit. 3. 26 plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 51 of 2006. 2nd plaintiff is Sri Jami Kurma Rao. He died on 22.08.2008 and it occurred during the pendency of the suit. His wife also died. He has sons and daughters and they are the revision petitioners herein and they seek their impleadment in the suit as plaintiffs 27 to 33. 4. Earlier to their petition under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. they had filed in I.A. No. 401 of 2012 and I.A. No. 402 of 2012 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta. I.A. 401 of 2012 was an application to condone the delay of 3468 days in presenting an application for impleadement of legal representatives. I.A. No. 402 of 2012 was an application for impleadment of legal representatives. Both the applications were enquired into and they were dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge. Learned trial Court observed that the delay of 3468 days was not satisfactorily explained and saying so it dismissed I.A. No. 401 of 2012. Since that application was dismissed as a consequence to follow, it dismissed I.A. No. 402 of 2012. Thus the efforts of legal representatives to come on record under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. failed before the learned trial Court. 5. Aggrieved by those orders, the legal representatives preferred C.R.P. Nos. 312 and 342 of 2015. This Court by an order dated 11.12.2018 found that legal representatives in their petitions failed to furnish necessary particulars in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and further the affidavit indicated the delay was at 3468 days. 5. Aggrieved by those orders, the legal representatives preferred C.R.P. Nos. 312 and 342 of 2015. This Court by an order dated 11.12.2018 found that legal representatives in their petitions failed to furnish necessary particulars in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and further the affidavit indicated the delay was at 3468 days. However, the learned counsel appearing for them before this Court submitted that the actual delay was only 1389 days. After considering the ratio laid down in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathapur Nafar Academy and Others, (2013) 12 SCC 649 this Court concluded that the petitioners have not been acting with care and caution and failed to furnish relevant facts and the facts stated did not offer sufficient cause for delay and approved the trial Court orders and dismissed the petitions. Those orders became final. It is in the back drop of those earlier legal proceedings, the present case proceedings have to be noticed now. 6. These revision petitioners filed I.A. No. 01 of 2018 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. on 17.12.2018. In that petition it is stated that they are the sole survivors and legal heirs to the deceased 2nd plaintiff Sri Jami Kurma Rao and they have filed this petition subsequent to the dismissal of their applications under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. It is stated that the deceased 2nd plaintiff was having a wooden bunk in the suit schedule property and that was removed by the Municipal Authorities and that removal took place without prior notice and therefore challenging that removal, the 2nd plaintiff along with other plaintiffs filed the suit. That these legal representatives are interested to prosecute the suit as they step into shoes of their deceased father. Even after dismissal of their application under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. they have got every right to agitate for their rights. They are proper and necessary parties and in their absence the cause prosecuted by their father could not fulfilled. Therefore, their presence in the suit is essential. With these reasons they prayed for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. 7. They are proper and necessary parties and in their absence the cause prosecuted by their father could not fulfilled. Therefore, their presence in the suit is essential. With these reasons they prayed for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. 7. Contesting respondent filed a counter denying the petition averments and stated that while the revision against the order of dismissal of application for delay condonation and Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. application are pending before the Hon’ble High Court, the present petition is filed under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. and therefore it is not maintainable. Since the petitioners only legal representatives and are not third parties, they cannot take recourse to Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. The petition is not maintainable under law. For these reasons they sought for dismissal of the petition. 8. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta enquired into this application and sated that six years after dismissal of petition under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. the present petition is filed. That the petitioners have complete knowledge of the dismissal of the petition, yet they did not take steps to file this petition under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. soon thereafter. It further recorded that the suit against 2nd plaintiff already stood abated and the Court already dismissed the petition to condone delay in filing set-aside abatement order and for those reasons the petitioners could not be permitted to come on record under the guise of necessary and proper parties. It is for those reasons he dismissed the petition. 9. Challenging that the present revision is filed stating that the dismissal of the earlier applications is no bar for the legal representatives to come up with an application of under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. and the earlier orders do not operate as res-judicata and the trial Court failed to consider that these revision petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased 2nd plaintiff and with a view to enable them effectively to contest the suit and facilitating the Court to decide all the questions in the suit, their presence is necessary. For these reasons they seek to set-aside the impugned order. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners earnestly argued that the learned trial Court committed error in dismissing order I Rule 10 petition on the ground that the earlier petition under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. was dismissed. For these reasons they seek to set-aside the impugned order. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners earnestly argued that the learned trial Court committed error in dismissing order I Rule 10 petition on the ground that the earlier petition under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. was dismissed. That the dismissal of petition order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. is no bar to file a petition under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. and placed reliance on Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya vs. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalvadiya, (2017) 9 SCC 700 : 2018 (2) ALD 82 SC. Learned counsel also cited Banwari Lal vs. Balbir Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 607 . 11. As against this, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration and the counsel Sri Y. Rama Rao representing the contesting respondents argued that successive application one under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC and another under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. cannot be maintained. That the revision petitioners failed to show any explanation against the observations of the trial Court that the suit itself abated, so far as deceased 2nd plaintiff is concerned and in that event nothing survived for these revision petitioners to prosecute. It is argued that on facts and law the Order of the trial Court was correct requiring no interference. 12. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having perused the record the questions that fall for consideration are: (1) Whether the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff could seek impleadment under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. when their effort to get impleadment under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. failed because of unreasonable and unexplained delay? (2) In the facts and circumstances of the case whether the impugned order could called as one causing miscarriage of justice requiring interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? POINTS: 13. One of the contentions raised by the contesting respondents was about prosecuting two legal proceedings simultaneously. The death of 2nd plaintiff occurred on 22.08.2008. These revision petitioners earlier filed I.A. No. 401 of 2012 and I.A. No. 402 of 2012 seeking their impleadment as legal representatives. The trial Court dismissed those applications on merits on 23.06.2014. As against those orders, their Civil Revision Petition Nos.312 of 2015 and 342 of 2015 were dismissed by this Court on 11.12.2018. These revision petitioners earlier filed I.A. No. 401 of 2012 and I.A. No. 402 of 2012 seeking their impleadment as legal representatives. The trial Court dismissed those applications on merits on 23.06.2014. As against those orders, their Civil Revision Petition Nos.312 of 2015 and 342 of 2015 were dismissed by this Court on 11.12.2018. It was thereafter on 17.12.2018 these revision petitioners filed I.A. No. 1 of 2018 before the learned trial Court for their impleadment under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. These facts are seen from the record. They indicate that there was no simultaneous prosecution of legal proceedings at two forums. Therefore, that contention of the respondents is negatived. 14. The prime contention of the revision petitioners is that there is no prohibition under law for them to file an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. after dismissal of their application under Order XXII C.P.C. For revision petitioners, Banwari Lal’s case (supra) is cited for that proposition. In Para No. 8 of the judgment the legal principle stated is that Civil Procedure Code in Order XXII stipulates the manner in which the legal representatives of the plaintiffs or the defendants are to be brought on record. The prescribed procedure cannot be circumvented by filing an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. Thus, the contention that it is always a matter of choice and right for the revision petitioners to come up with one after another application is incorrect. In the cited ruling, there were various events that took place, which finally were brought to rest by their Lordships and therefore, their Lordships observed that at that stage of the case, it would be unjust to non-suit the appellants therein on the ground of procedural technicalities and allowed the impleadment. 15. Learned counsel for revision petitioners, to sustain the contention cited Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia’s case (supra). That was a case where, by the time the suit was filed defendant No. 7 already died and the plaintiff did not know it and after return of the summons, plaintiffs learnt that death of defendant No. 7 preceded the date of institution of the suit. That was a case where, by the time the suit was filed defendant No. 7 already died and the plaintiff did not know it and after return of the summons, plaintiffs learnt that death of defendant No. 7 preceded the date of institution of the suit. With a view to bring legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 7, they filed an application under Order XXII Rule 4 C.P.C. After due enquiry, that application was dismissed as not maintainable by the lower Courts on the premise that only in the event of death of a party to the pending litigation Order XXII can be utilized to bring on record the legal representatives of one of the parties to the suit. However, the suit against defendant No. 7, who was already dead earlier to the filing of the suit, is a nullity and since defendant No. 7 was not in existence by the date of suit, he was not a party to the pending suit and therefore, procedure prescribed under Order XXII C.P.C. could not be adopted. It was thereafter the legal representatives filed an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. It was in the context of above facts and circumstances, their Lordships framed the question that fell for consideration before them at Para No. 6 stating that whether legal representatives could be impleaded under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. when defendant No. 7 expired prior to the filing of the suit, particularly, when the application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record under Order XXII Rule 4 C.P.C. was dismissed as not maintainable. After enunciating the law, their Lordships at Para No. 9 held that since about the legal representatives there was no adjudication in the earlier petition and the earlier petition was dismissed only on the ground that it was not maintainable and therefore, in such circumstances, a petition seeking impleadment under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. could be maintained. 16. In the light of the above ruling, the facts available in this case have to be seen. In this case, these revision petitioners made a highly belated attempt to come on record under Order XXII C.P.C. The trial Court as well as this Court found no merit in their applications. Thus, on merits their applications for impleadment as legal representatives were dismissed. In this case, these revision petitioners made a highly belated attempt to come on record under Order XXII C.P.C. The trial Court as well as this Court found no merit in their applications. Thus, on merits their applications for impleadment as legal representatives were dismissed. Thus, it is not a case where their earlier applications were dismissed as not maintainable. That makes the material difference in the facts available before this Court as against the facts that were available in the cited ruling. Therefore, as an abstract proposition of law it is incorrect on part of the revision petitioners to contend that it is always a matter of right for them to seek relief under one petition and then come up with another petition. Therefore, that contention of the revision petitioners is negatived. The observations of the learned trial Court in the impugned order was that at least soon after dismissal of their petitions under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. they ought to have filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. This he mentioned stating that by the manner in which the time was consumed the legal consequence of abatement also took place and in such an event, he could not permit the petitioners to come on record under the guise of Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. On this aspect, no submissions are made before this Court. However, the assumption of the trial Court does not seem to be in accordance with law so far as the point of abatement is concerned. There are two aspects to abatement. One is substantive in nature and the other is procedural in nature. The substantive abatement is the right to sue itself gets abated on the death of an individual. The procedural abatement is in the nature of suspension of pending proceedings in a suit for want of proper parties capable of prosecuting the litigation. What happened on the death of 2nd plaintiff was only procedural abatement, but not substantive abatement. However, it is expected from the petitioners at least they offer some factual basis to the trial Court as to what was the cause of delay and why the abatement was to be set aside though abatement need not be considered. However the affidavit of the petitioners filed before the trial Court maintains absolute silence on this. However, it is expected from the petitioners at least they offer some factual basis to the trial Court as to what was the cause of delay and why the abatement was to be set aside though abatement need not be considered. However the affidavit of the petitioners filed before the trial Court maintains absolute silence on this. Parties in their proceedings have not even chosen to explain anything that is really helpful for a Court to appropriately consider all the facts and even the nature of relief prayed in the suit is not brought on record properly except saying that the wooden bunk was removed without any prior notice by the Municipality and Government authorities and questioning that only the suit was filed. It is not known whether it was a suit for declaration or whether it was a suit for damages. In this revision also nothing was submitted on that aspect. 17. A few more facts are required to be noticed. While the death of 2nd plaintiff occurred on 22.08.2008, the application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. was filed before the trial Court on 17.12.2018. Thus, there was a time gap of nearly 10 years 4 months. 18. At this juncture, it is apt to record what is there in Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as below: “21. Effect of substituting or adding new plaintiff or defendant: (1) Where after the institution of a suit, a new plaintiff or, defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall, as regards him, be deemed to have been instituted when he was so made a party: Provided that where the court is satisfied that the omission to include a new plaintiff or defendant was due to a mistake made in good faith it may direct that the suit as regards such plaintiff or defendant shall be deemed to have been instituted on any earlier date. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to a case where a party is added or substituted owing to assignment or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit or where a plaintiff is made a defendant or a defendant is made a plaintiff.” 19. The purport of this provision is that as regards the new entrant into the suit as a plaintiff the suit is deemed to have been instituted so far he is concerned when he is made a party. The purport of this provision is that as regards the new entrant into the suit as a plaintiff the suit is deemed to have been instituted so far he is concerned when he is made a party. Now the question is when did the original cause of action had arisen for the original 2nd plaintiff to sue. That is not known from this record. Whether the suit is within time or not and what is the article of limitation and what is the nature of relief in the suit are all not known. It is for the revision petitioners to bring all those facts on record. When the proposed amendment that is mentioned in the petition filed before the trial Court does not contain anything concerning aspects of limitation, if one wishes to get the benefit provided in the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the Limitation Act, he has to show that the lapse was either out of a mistake or out of good faith. These petitioners, failed to furnish even minimum required information and data about the delay on their part, in seeking their impleadment in the earlier round of litigation. Similar lapses have been continuing in this round of litigation too. Nothing is averred or argued on principles of limitation. 20. The normal rule of pleadings contained in Order VII Rule 6 C.P.C. concerning limitation is expected to be mentioned in the proposed amendment to the plaint. That is not done. 21. In the context of the above facts and circumstances, the exercise of discretion by the learned trial Court in saying that these revision petitioners failed to explain anything properly and that they did not offer anything concerning abatement and that there was inordinate delay on their part in coming to Court cannot be found fault with. At any rate, one could not say that the impugned order suffers from any illegality causing any miscarriage of justice. Therefore, both the points are answered against the revision petitioners. 22. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 09.04.2019 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta in I.A. No. 1 of 2018 in O.S. No. 51 of 2006. There shall be no order as to costs. 23. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.