VERMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by the defendant against the order dated 20. 4. 2000 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) West, Jaipur city, Jaipur, whereby the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC has been decided in a suit for eviction and recovery of rent for the premises in question.
(2.) THE application was necessiated because of the death of Smt. Bhagwati Devi plaintiff on 13. 7. 1998, but the application for substitution by bringing on record the L. Rs. of the plaintiff was moved on 2. 11. 1998 which was beyond the period of limitation of 90 days and barred by 22 days. An application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved. THE applicant had submitted that because of the advise as given by the counsel, a misunderstanding had been created about the time of limitation and, therefore, the application for setting aside the abatement was also moved. THE trial court had observed that if the application is not moved within 90 days then the suit itself abates, but for setting aside the abatement, an application can be moved within 60 days. The application for bringing on record the L. Rs. of the plaintiff was allowed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the appeal stands abated, no application either u/s 5 or under Order 22 Rule 9 could have been moved and relies on a judgment of this court in the case of Sultan & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. (1), and a Single Bench judgment of this court in the case of Vidhya Prakash vs. Ranidan (2), but the facts of these cases relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable and none of the authority is applicable in the present case. He also relies on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Sayed Mohd. Baquir El Edross (3), on the proposition that the strong merits of the case can never be considered as a good ground for condonation of delay. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Sayed Mohd. Baquir El Edross (supra) does not help the petitioner for the proposition in hand. Article 120 of the Limitation Act provides 90 days for bringing on record the L. Rs. of the deceased plaintiff or defendant, whereas Article 121 prescribes 60 days time to set aside an abatement.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, in the present case, the application for setting aside the abatement was moved within 60 days of the alleged abatement and the trial court had found sufficient reason for setting aside the abatement and as such no jurisdictional error has been committed by the trial court so as to warrant any interference in the revision petition. The revision petition is dismissed at admission stage. .;