Dalip Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. In the instant case, the original tenant died and intimation to this effect was given by the counsel for the defendant to the Court. The original defendant/tenant died on 15.12.2008 and thereafter no application for substitution was filed as admittedly there is no natural heir of the deceased defendant.
(2.) AN application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. Came to be filed by the plaintiff on 06.05.2009 wherein it was stated that one Madhusudan Soni Soni of Khemraj is in the possession of the premises in dispute and „ as such it is necessary to implead the said Madhusudan Soni as a party to the suit. This application, as has been stated above, was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. An objection came to be raised by Madhusudan Soni to the effect that the suit stood abated as no application within 90 days for substitution was filed on the death of the original defendant -tenant which occurred on 15.12.2008 and, therefore, on 15.02.2009 after the expiry of 90 days, the suit stood abated. The same objections and contentions have been raised before this Court which were raised before the learned trial court and which have been negated by the learned trial Court against the impugned order.
(3.) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the abatement is automatic and no application having been filed within the prescribed time the suit stood abated and the learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to implead Madhusudan Soni, petitioner, as party under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. after the abatement.;