// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9381/2007 Kishanlal S/o Shri Gordarmal Versus Laxman Das (since deceased) through Smt. Jeevanlata and Others Date of Order ::: 23.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Manish Sharma, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition, on behalf of the defendant, is directed against the impugned order dated 29th September, 2007 passed by the trial court whereby the trial court has allowed three applications filed by the plaintiff – first under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, second under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and third under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC, and passed an order for substitution of legal representatives of deceased plaintiff Kiran Devi on the record after setting-aside abatement of the suit. I have considered the submissions of // 2 // learned counsel for the petitioner and also examined the impugned order. Smt. Kiran Devi died on 3rd July, 2004. An application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was filed for substitution of her legal representatives on the record on 26th October, 2005. Objection of the defendant was that the application is barred by limitation. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also filed separate application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC for setting-aside the abatement, if any. The trial court allowed all the three applications. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the said order so as to interfere with the same. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//