ORDER : ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. The instant Civil Miscellaneous Application is preferred by the appellant-plaintiff for restoration of S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.76/2020 titled as ‘ Ram Gupta Vs. Arjun Lal ’ which was dismissed in abatement on 02.12.2024, after setting aside abatement. 2. By this order, we are also disposing of Application Nos.1/2025, 2/2025 and CMCC No.567/2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant- appellant-plaintiff has preferred a Second Appeal No.76/2020 after dismissal of First Appeal No.19/2007 on 21.10.2019 by learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. He further submitted that initially, the present appellant-plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction, determination of standard rent and permanent injunction against tenant Arjun Lal (since deceased) on ground of default in payment of rent and personal and bona fide need but the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. He further submitted that the Appellate Court without considering the legal issues has also dismissed the first appeal under Section 96 of CPC. He further submitted that aggrieved from said judgment, he has preferred the second appeal which was pending before this Hon’ble Court. He also submitted that on 15.12.2020 the Hon’ble Court has directed issuance of notice to respondent and a power is filed on behalf of the respondent-defendant. He also submitted that the appeal was liable for admission but unfortunately same is not admitted. He further submitted that on 16.11.2023, an incomplete application about information of death of defendant is filed by the counsel for the respondent but no information about the legal heirs is filed. He further submitted that on 02.12.2024, this Hon’ble Court has abated the appeal as sole respondent had expired on 01.01.2023. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the duty lies upon the counsel to intimate without any delay about the death of a party along with details of legal heirs but same has not been submitted in accordance with Rule 10A of Order 22 of CPC. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of Ram Ratan Gupta Vs. Sarju Narain and Ors. : 1997(1) WLC (Raj.) 597 and submitted that when application is incomplete and submitted without any details of legal representatives of deceased then the suit cannot be abated. He further referred and relied upon judgment in case of Sooka Lal (Dead through LRs) Vs. Kishan and Anr. Sarju Narain and Ors. : 1997(1) WLC (Raj.) 597 and submitted that when application is incomplete and submitted without any details of legal representatives of deceased then the suit cannot be abated. He further referred and relied upon judgment in case of Sooka Lal (Dead through LRs) Vs. Kishan and Anr. : 1997 (1) WLC (Raj.) 619 and submitted that the applicant is entitled for condonation of delay in filing application. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of Binod Pathak and Ors. Vs. Shankar Choudhary and Ors. : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1411 and submitted that the intimation application is not sufficient for compliance under Order 22 Rule 10A of CPC, therefore, application for setting aside of abatement is liable to be allowed and legal heir of defendant be substituted after condonation of delay. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that as a counsel of defendant soon after the knowledge of death, he has filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10A of CPC and there is no duty casted upon him to furnish any details of legal representatives of deceased. He further referred a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Gurjala Bharathi and Ors. Vs. Vgindhya Corporatioi and Ors. : MANU/AP/0699/2007 and submitted that there is no obligation upon the counsel to furnish details of legal representatives. He further submits that after death of defendant (tenant), the applicant-appellant has not filed any application for substitution. He also submitted that an application is filed by him informing about death of respondent-defendant (tenant) but no action has been taken till 02.12.2024 which is sufficient to show that that there was deliberate delay of more than one year, on part of appellant. He submitted that it is duty of the applicant-appellant to show sufficient reasons for condonation of delay as application for setting aside of abatement and substitution is not filed within the period of limitation. He placed reliance upon judgments in case of Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and Others : (2010) 8 SCC 685 and Katari Suryanarayana and Ors. Vs. Koppisetti Subba Rao & Ors. : AIR 2009 SC 2907 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for the parties. 7. Jagdish Singh and Others : (2010) 8 SCC 685 and Katari Suryanarayana and Ors. Vs. Koppisetti Subba Rao & Ors. : AIR 2009 SC 2907 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The applicant-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for eviction and same was dismissed on 09.05.2007. Aggrieved plaintiff has filed an appeal under Section 96 of CPC but same was also dismissed on 21.10.2019 though there is a concurrent finding of facts but still the appellant plaintiff has filed a second appeal before this Court under Section 100 of CPC. During pendency of said appeal, the respondent-defendant Arjun Lal has expired on 01.01.2023. The information of death of Arjun Lal is filed on record under Order 22 Rule 10A of CPC by learned counsel for the respondent on 18.01.2024, but no details of legal heirs were filed. 8. In case of Binod Pathak and Ors. Vs. Shankar Choudhary and Ors. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered duty of pleader under Rule 10A of Order 22 of CPC and observed as under:- “63. However, we are of the view that providing merely an information with regard to the fact of death is not sufficient compliance of the Rule 10A of the CPC. unless and until the counsel furnishes the information with regard to the details of the persons on whom and against whom the right to sue survives and the information under Rule 10A of the CPC. and the object behind it would remain incomplete as the parties would still be labouring to inquire who are the legal representatives and find out as to upon whom and against whom the right to sue survives.” 9. Even considering judgment in case of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom Perinadu Village v. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by Lrs. and Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 321 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has has explained the principles applicable in considering applications for setting aside the abatement and summarised such principles as under: - “12. In State of M.P. v. S.S. Akolkar [ (1996) 2 SCC 568 ] this Court held: (SCC pp. 569-70, paras 6-7) “6. and Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 321 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has has explained the principles applicable in considering applications for setting aside the abatement and summarised such principles as under: - “12. In State of M.P. v. S.S. Akolkar [ (1996) 2 SCC 568 ] this Court held: (SCC pp. 569-70, paras 6-7) “6. [...] Under Order 22 Rule 10-A, it is the duty of the counsel, on coming to know of the death of a party, to inform it to the court and the court shall give notice to the other party of the death. By necessary implication delay for substitution of legal representatives begins to run from the date of knowledge. […] 7. It is settled law that the consideration for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and setting aside of the abatement under Order 22 are entirely distinct and different. The court always liberally considers the latter, though in some case, the court may refuse to condone the delay under in filing the appeals. After the appeal has been filed and is pending, the Government is not expected to keep watch whether the contesting respondent is alive or has passed away. After the matter was brought to the notice of the counsel for the State, steps were taken even thereafter; after due verification belated application came to be filed. It is true that of the Limitation Act would be applicable and delay is required to be explained. The delay in official business requires its broach and approach from public justice perspective.” (i) The words “sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation” should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The words “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant. (ii) In considering the reasons for condonation of delay, the courts are more liberal with reference to applications for setting Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1536 of 2015 Page 35 of 40 aside abatement, than other cases. (ii) In considering the reasons for condonation of delay, the courts are more liberal with reference to applications for setting Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1536 of 2015 Page 35 of 40 aside abatement, than other cases. While the court will have to keep in view that a valuable right accrues to the legal representatives of the deceased respondent when the appeal abates, it will not punish an appellant with foreclosure of the appeal, for unintended lapses. The courts tend to set aside abatement and decide the matter on merits, rather than terminate the appeal on the ground of abatement. (iii) The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation. (iv) The extent or degree of leniency to be shown by a court depends on the nature of application and facts and circumstances of the case. For example, courts view delays in making applications in a pending appeal more leniently than delays in the institution of an appeal. The courts view applications relating to lawyer's lapses more leniently than applications relating to litigant's lapses. The classic example is the difference in approach of courts to applications for condonation of delay in filing an appeal and applications for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal after rectification of defects. (v) Want of “diligence” or “inaction” can be attributed to an appellant only when something required to be done by him, is not done. When nothing is required to be done, courts do not expect the appellant to be diligent. Where an appeal is admitted by the High Court and is not expected to be listed for final hearing for a few years, an appellant is not expected to visit the court or his lawyer every few weeks to ascertain the position nor keep checking whether the contesting respondent is alive. He merely awaits the call or information from his counsel about the listing of the appeal.” (Emphasis supplied)” 10. The principle of law as decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly indicated that a duty is casted upon Advocate of a party not only to intimate about death of a party but also the details of the person on whom and against whom the right to sue survives. 11. Having considered the judgment in case of Binod Pathak and Ors. Vs. Shankar Choudhary and Ors. 11. Having considered the judgment in case of Binod Pathak and Ors. Vs. Shankar Choudhary and Ors. (supra), the judgment in case of Gurjala Bharathi and Ors. Vs. Vgindhya Corporatioi and Ors. (supra) is not applicable. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ram Ratan Gupta Vs. Sarju Narain and Ors. (supra) clearly observed that without information of names of legal representatives of deceased, the suit cannot be abated considering the information of death under Rule 10A of Order 22 of CPC. Similar view is also expressed in case of Sooka Lal (Dead through LRs) Vs. Kishan and Anr. (supra). 12. The application under Order 22 Rule 10A of CPC contains an information that defendant Arjun Lal had expired on 01.01.2023 but there is no information about legal heirs of Arjun Lal. Therefore, considering the judgment as referred hereinabove the counsel for respondent has not complied the provision under Order 22 Rule 10A of CPC. 13. After abatement on 02.12.2024, application for setting aside of abatement is filed on 03.02.2025 along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for taking on record the legal heirs. 14. After considering the judgment in case of Binod Pathak and Ors. Vs. Shankar Choudhary and Ors. (supra), we can certainly say that there is no compliance of Order 22 Rule 10A of CPC by the learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, the applicant-appellant-plaintiff is not aware about the legal heirs of deceased defendant Arjun Lal. 15. Office has pointed out that the application is time barred by 675 days and an application for condonation has been filed. In case of Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and Others (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there has to be a sufficient cause in allowing application for condonation of delay. While referring judgment in case of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom Perinadu Village v. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by Lrs. and Others (supra) it was held that delay is one of the ingredient which has to be considered by the Court and in addition to delay the Court must also take into account the conduct of the parties, bona fide reasons for condonnation of delay and whether such delay could early be avoided by applicant acting with normal care and caution. In case of Katari Suryanarayana and Ors. Vs. Koppisetti Subba Rao & Ors. In case of Katari Suryanarayana and Ors. Vs. Koppisetti Subba Rao & Ors. (supra) huge delay in bringing legal heirs of deceased respondents on record in second appeal was not allowed. 16. In case of Binod Pathak and Ors. Vs. Shankar Choudhary and Ors. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered principle applicable for setting aside the abatement in particular condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered the power of the Court for condonation of delay in case of In case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353 and P. Subba Reddy (died) by LRs. And Ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector ( LA ) 2024 INSC 286 . 17. Considering the judgments as referred hereinabove and also the judgments as referred by learned counsel for the respondent, it is apparent on record that the applicant-appellant has pleaded ignorance about the knowledge of names of legal representatives of deceased respondent-defendant Arjun Lal and same information is not provided in the application dated 18.01.2024 under Order 22 Rule 10A CPC. We have considered a similar issue with regard to procedure in High Court in case of Dinesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. Shiv Taj Singh & Ors. (S.B. Civil First Appeal No.289/2001 dated 16.11.2023) , wherein we have also condoned delay in allowing application to bring legal heirs on record. 18. Considering aforesaid applications preferred by appellant- plaintiff, the applications are liable to be allowed subject to payment of cost so as to compensate delay, occurred in filing application for setting aside order of abatement. 19. Therefore, applications preferred by the present applicant- appellant-plaintiff is allowed and abatement in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.76/2020 by order dated 02.12.2024 is set aside and application for substitution of legal heirs of respondent-defendant Arjun Lal under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC is allowed and legal heir No.1/1 Vimal is substituted after condonation of delay subject to payment of cost of ?10,000/- to the counsel for the respondent. The amended cause title is taken on record. 20. Office is directed to re-register the S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.76/2020 and list it before appropriate Bench. 21. All misc. applications stand disposed.