CRP 267/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr S. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners-defendants in TS No.227 of 2007 have challen ged the order dated 24.6.09 passed learned court below allowing the application filed by plaintiffs for bringing the legal heirs of plaintiff No.2 on record, wh o expired on 17.4.08 by condoning the delay in filing such application. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitio ners that since no separate application for setting aside abatement was made, le arned court below ought not to have substituted the names of the legal heirs of plaintiff No.2. It appears from the order dated 24.6.2009 that together with an application seeking substitution of the names of the legal heirs of plai ntiff No.2 an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. The learn ed court below upon consideration of the averments made in the application seeki ng condonation of delay has found that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the application seeking substitution in time. Having satis fied, the learned court below has condoned the delay and allowed the substitutio n though no separate application for setting aside abatement was filed. The lea rned court below, in my view, having satisfied about reason for the delay caused and having allowed the application filed u/s 5 of Limitation Act has rightly se t aside the abatement caused, without insisting for technical compliance of fili ng a separate application for setting aside abatement. In view of above, the impugned order dated 24.6.2009 doe s not require any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs .