D.C.DALELA, J. - (1.)HEARD .
(2.)AN application has been moved on 3.11.97, by the appellant -defendant, under Order 22, Rules 4 and 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), for causing the legal representative of the deceased respondent -plaintiff to be made party and setting aside abatement, if any. The counsel for the defendant informed this Court on 20.8.97 that the respondent, Vasudev, has expired on 21.6.97. A copy of the information was given to the learned Counsel for the appellant on 12.8.97.
In the case of State of M.P. v. S.S. Akolkar AIR 1996 SC 1984, Hon'ble The Supreme Court has observed as under -

Under 0. 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 of substitution of legal representatives begins to run from the date of knowledge.
It is settled law that the consideration for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act and setting aside of the abatement under Order 22 are entirely distinct and different. The Court always liberally considers the latter.
(3.)THIS decision of Hon'ble The Supreme Court, has been followed by this Court, in the case of Sooka Lal (Dead, through LRs) v. Kishan and Anr. 1997 (1) WLC (Raj.) 619.