JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Instant petition, invoking provisions of Article 227 of Constitution of India, has been preferred by defendant No.1 Pran Nath Mehra against the order dated 17th July, 2019, passed by the Civil Judge Manali, District Kullu, in an application filed by proposed plaintiff Sanjay Seth, the legal heir of deceased plaintiff No.1 Umi Seth in Civil Suit No. 63 of 2014 titled Umi Seth and others vs. Pran Nath Mehra and others, whereby Trial Court has allowed the substitution of deceased plaintiff Umi Seth through her legal heirs after condonation of delay. 2. Main pleas to assail the aforesaid order are that application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was filed at belated stage, that too without accompanying an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay and also without filing an application for making any prayer for setting aside the abatement of suit on account of death of plaintiff No.1 Umi Seth. It has been contended that applicant, being son of Umi Seth, had knowledge about death of his mother but he failed to file the application within time and the Trial Court without framing any issue, holding any inquiry with respect to existence of sufficient cause, has condoned the delay merely on conjectures. It has been further contended on behalf of defendant No.1/petitioner that Trial Court has committed grave illegality and material irregularity by directing to bring on record only one of legal representatives of deceased plaintiff Umi Seth, whereas other legal heirs are also there. 3. In present matter, three plaintiffs, including plaintiff No.1 Umi Seth preferred a suit on 2.8.2014 seeking declaration that they are in exclusive joint ownership and possession of suit land, whereas defendant is only trustee of said land as per Will dated 14.5.1998 executed by Ram Nath Mehta and defendant Pran Nath Mehta has no individual right to transfer title and interest of any kind therein, with consequential relief for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant Pran Nath Mehta from causing any kind of interference in the use of suit land by plaintiffs. 4. During pendency of suit, plaintiff No.1 Umi Seth expired on 20.06.2018. On 26.06.2018, when case was listed for recording the evidence of plaintiff, Trial Court was informed about death of plaintiff No.1 with prayer to grant time for making an application to bring on record her legal heirs. 4. During pendency of suit, plaintiff No.1 Umi Seth expired on 20.06.2018. On 26.06.2018, when case was listed for recording the evidence of plaintiff, Trial Court was informed about death of plaintiff No.1 with prayer to grant time for making an application to bring on record her legal heirs. Trial Court adjourned the matter for 3.8.2018. Thereafter, on 3.8.2018 and 20.09.2018, time prayed on behalf of plaintiff to file an application was granted. On 14.11.2018, application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was filed stating therein that Umi Seth had expired leaving behind her legal heirs namely Seema Seth (daughter), Jai Deep Seth, Sandeep Seth and Sanjay Seth (sons). The application was filed on affidavit of Sanjay Seth stating therein that Seema Seth, Jai Deep Seth and Sandeep Seth had issued the affidavits for NOC to Sanjay Seth to prosecute the suit. 5. For filing the reply to application, time was extended thrice, on request of defendant Pran Nath Mehta, on 18.12.2018, 27.02.2019 and lastly it was filed on 12.03.2019, with objections mainly on grounds, enumerated herein-above. 6. It has been contended on behalf of defendant/petitioner that order passed by Court below is without jurisdiction and thus not sustainable as it has been passed without taking into consideration the fact that suit had already abated and application for substitution of legal representatives has been allowed without any prayer on record to set aside the abatement. 7. Learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs has contended that there was sufficient cause which prevented Sanjay Seth from filing the application within limitation period as he and other legal heirs are residing abroad and were not easily available for taking steps to substitute deceased plaintiff Umi Seth and further that applicant was able to get the legal heirs certificate issued on 17.10.2018 and immediately thereafter, application was filed without any further delay. 8. 8. Learned counsel for Sanjay Seth has also contended that there was no abatement of suit on account of death of one plaintiff and further that instead of considering the intricacies of procedure, the application filed by Sanjay Seth for substitution of legal heirs of plaintiff No.1 along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act should be considered as composite application on behalf of applicant for substitution of legal heirs of deceased plaintiff after condonation of delay and setting aside the abatement, if any, and, therefore, Trial Court has rightly allowed both applications directing the impleadment of all legal heirs of deceased plaintiff Umi Seth. 9. Order 22 Rule 1 provides that death of a plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit to abate if the right to sue survives. Rule 2 provides that where there are more plaintiffs and any of them dies and where right to sue survives to surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, the Court shall cause an entry to the effect to be made on record and suit shall proceed at the instance of surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs. 10. Order 22 Rule 3 CPC provides that where one of two or more plaintiffs die and right to sue does not survive to surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, the Court, on an application made in this behalf, shall cause the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff to be made a party and thereafter he shall proceed with suit. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 3 provides that where within time limited by law, no application is made under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3, the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned. 11. Rule 9 of Order 22 CPC provides that on abatement or dismissal of the suit, legal representative of deceased plaintiff may apply for setting aside the said order by establishing that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from continuing the suit. In this regard, provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been made applicable to sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of Order 22 CPC. 12. In this regard, provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been made applicable to sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of Order 22 CPC. 12. Rule 1 of Order 22 CPC provides no abatement on party’s death if right to sue survives and in such eventuality, if there are more plaintiffs then there is no need, as provided under Rule 2, to substitute the deceased through his legal heirs, rather Court has been empowered to cause an entry to that effect to be made on record and suit shall proceed at the instance of surviving plaintiffs/plaintiff. Rule 3 speaks about abatement on failure to file an application within limitation period, however on filing an application, condition precedent is that there must be death of one or two or more plaintiffs and right to sue should not survive to the surviving plaintiffs or plaintiff alone and in case there is sole plaintiff and he dies, there should be survival of right to sue and failure to file an application, suit shall abate qua deceased plaintiff. 13. In present case, suit has been filed claiming right to property with joint ownership and possession upon the suit land with claim that defendant Pran Nath Mehta is only trustee as per Will dated 14.5.1998 executed by Ram Nath Mehta. Suit has been filed claiming right to the property. Therefore, even after death of one plaintiff, right to sue survives to the surviving plaintiffs and in such eventuality, surviving plaintiffs were having right to continue the suit as provided under Rule 2. 14. So far as legal heirs of deceased plaintiff are concerned, being a suit claiming right in the property, they were having right to sue so as to entitling them to file an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and in case of delay, they would have filed an application for condonation of delay and setting aside the abatement. 15. Umi Seth died on 20.06.2018. The time to file appropriate application for her substitution was extended by Court thrice in presence of defendant/learned counsel for defendant. No objection was raised to such extension of time for filing the application. It is an admitted fact that legal heirs of Umi Seth are residing in abroad. 15. Umi Seth died on 20.06.2018. The time to file appropriate application for her substitution was extended by Court thrice in presence of defendant/learned counsel for defendant. No objection was raised to such extension of time for filing the application. It is an admitted fact that legal heirs of Umi Seth are residing in abroad. Therefore, the time taken for filing the application after obtaining the legal heirs certificate cannot be said to be unreasonable as legal heirs certificate was obtained on 17.10.2018 and application was filed on 14.11.2018. 16. There was delay in filing the application. It was filed after expiry of limitation period provided for that and, therefore, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was preferred but not with application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC however at later point of time, before passing the order in application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. 17. An application for condonation of delay can be filed at any time before passing the order of Court. It is also true that no separate application was filed for setting aside the abatement, however, it is not a case of negligence on the part of applicant but record and facts reveal that applicant was taking all possible steps well within his reach by instructing the counsel and it was for the counsel to file an application properly by mentioning the proper provisions of law and making appropriate prayer for condonation of delay and setting aside the abatement. 18. In present case, applicant has approached the counsel for substitution of deceased plaintiff through his legal heirs by supplying the copy of death certificate and legal heirs certificate along with other documents. It was for the Advocate to ensure filing an appropriate application(s) under Order 22 Rules 3 and 9 of CPC read with Section 5 of Limitation Act. It is not a case where negligence can be attributed to legal heirs/applicant. His counsel should have advised him to take necessary steps. He was dependent upon the advise of Advocate to take necessary steps. Due to failure to render such advise, assistance and expertise, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was not filed along with application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and there was no mention of Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside the abatement, if any. He was dependent upon the advise of Advocate to take necessary steps. Due to failure to render such advise, assistance and expertise, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was not filed along with application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and there was no mention of Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside the abatement, if any. It may be a case where counsel has not properly advised the applicant to take necessary steps. However, after considering the facts and circumstances, delay stands condoned and since all legal heirs of deceased Umi Seth have been ordered to be brought on record, therefore the abatement, if any, is also to be deemed to have been set aside. 19. In the given facts and circumstances, it can be construed that there was sufficient cause which prevented the applicant from filing application within the limitation period which has been filed within reasonable period. Once the Court has condoned the delay in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and has also allowed the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, it has obviously to be construed and deemed that abatement, if any, has also been set aside. 20. Even otherwise, law does not require making of separate application, apart from application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, for condonation of delay under Rule 9 of Order 22 CPC. Relief can be claimed in a single composite application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Rule 9 CPC and Section 5 of Limitation Act but the counsel for the applicant/legal heirs has omitted to do so but has tried to make good of mistake by filing an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act before passing of order in application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. 21. It is also apt to notice that estate of deceased plaintiff was being represented by co-sharers claiming joint ownership and possession on suit property and they were looking after the interest of deceased plaintiff and, therefore, it cannot be said that suit had been abated qua deceased plaintiff. Even otherwise, it is settled that procedural provisions of Order 22 should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice. 22. It is also settled that procedure is a hand made tool for doing substantial justice but not thwarting the same. Even otherwise, it is settled that procedural provisions of Order 22 should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice. 22. It is also settled that procedure is a hand made tool for doing substantial justice but not thwarting the same. As it is not a case of inordinate delay and negligence on the part of applicant/legal heirs, therefore, allowing the application, even in absence of better particulars, but considering the essence thereof, Trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity, rather has advanced the cause of justice. Technical objections should not come in the way for doing full and complete justice between the parties and in given facts and circumstances, it would be too hyper-technical view to reject the applications. 23. Plea of petitioner/defendant No.1 that all legal heirs have not been ordered to be brought on record is contrary to record as Trial Court has categorically directed that instead of one legal heir Sanjay Seth, all legal heirs are ordered to be brought on record. Three legal heirs namely Sanjay Seth, Jai Deep Seth and Sandeep Seth were duly represented by Advocates. Notice was ordered to be issued to remaining legal heir namely Seema Seth. It is also apt to record here that in case some of legal heirs are not interested to continue the suit as plaintiffs they can always be arrayed as party like respondent/defendant/proforma defendants and for their absence they can be proceeded ex-parte after transposing them from plaintiffs to defendants. 24. In view of above discussion, I do not find it a fit case to interfere by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India and, accordingly, petition is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. 25. Record of the Courts below be sent back immediately. 26. Before parting, I consider it necessary to observe that copy of plaint, placed on record, depicts that apart from defendant Pran Nath Mehta, there are four proforma-defendants and in memo of parties, defendant Pran Nath Mehta has not been numbered and proforma-defendants have been numbered as 1 to 4 as under:- “1. Smt.Umi Seth……. 2. Smt.Shabnam Sahunja…… 3. Sh/ Tejender Khanna…… …..Plaintiffs vs. Pran Nath Mehta…….. …...Defendant 1. Sh.Ram Mehta son 2. Sh.Raj Mehta, son 3. Vimal Mehta son 4. Rani Weslay daughter of Sh.Ashwani Mehta…. ...Performa Defendants” Correct memo of parties would be as under:- “1. Smt.Umi Seth……. 2. Smt.Umi Seth……. 2. Smt.Shabnam Sahunja…… 3. Sh/ Tejender Khanna…… …..Plaintiffs vs. Pran Nath Mehta…….. …...Defendant 1. Sh.Ram Mehta son 2. Sh.Raj Mehta, son 3. Vimal Mehta son 4. Rani Weslay daughter of Sh.Ashwani Mehta…. ...Performa Defendants” Correct memo of parties would be as under:- “1. Smt.Umi Seth……. 2. Smt.Shabnam Sahunja…… 3. Sh/ Tejender Khanna…… …..Plaintiffs vs. 1. Pran Nath Mehta…….. ...Defendant 2. Sh.Ram Mehta son 3. Sh.Raj Mehta, son 4. Vimal Mehta son 5. Rani Weslay daughter of Sh.Ashwani Mehta…. ...Performa Defendants” 27. It is a wrong practice. In CPC, there is no class of defendants to be numbered separately. All defendants are to be numbered in continuity, though they may be denoted, as per practice, as defendant and proforma-defendant according to their role and right pleaded and relief claimed or not claimed against or qua them. Trial Court is directed to get the mistake rectified. 28. The Registrar General is also directed to issue general direction to all concerned in this regard as similar mistake has also been noticed by the Court in cases filed in the High Court. A copy of this order be placed before the Registrar General for compliance.