Question

According to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where a suit has abated due to failure to bring legal representatives on record within the prescribed time, the court may set aside such abatement if the plaintiff shows:

• A. That decree has not yet been passed.
• B. Error apparent on the face of record.
• C. That the defendant had knowledge of death.
• D. Sufficient cause for not making the application within time.

Hint:

Order XXII Rule 9 is the remedy for "Abatement." If you miss the timeline to bring legal representatives on record, "Sufficient Cause" is your only way back into the suit!

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

This question can be tested in two parts, first confirming which remedy applies, then checking what ground that remedy actually requires.

Test 1, right remedy:
Since a fresh suit on the same cause of action is barred once a suit abates without permission, the plaintiff's only path forward is to apply to set aside the abatement itself under Order XXII, not to pursue review or rely on the absence of a decree, which belong to entirely different situations.

Test 2, correct ground:
Order XXII Rule 9 requires the applicant to show sufficient cause for not bringing the legal representatives on record, or for not making the application, within the prescribed time. Knowledge of death on the defendant's part, or the decree not yet being passed, plays no role in this specific test.

Conclusion:
Matching the options against Test 2, only sufficient cause for the delay is the ground the rule actually recognises.

\[ \boxed{\text{Sufficient cause for not making the application within time.}} \]

Answer 2

Order XXII Rule 9 exists to balance two competing interests: giving finality to suits once representatives are not brought on record in time, while still protecting genuine litigants who missed the deadline for a real, honest reason. Testing each option against that balance shows what the plaintiff must actually prove.

1. That decree has not yet been passed: Whether a decree exists has nothing to do with the fairness of the plaintiff's own delay in bringing representatives on record.
2. Error apparent on the face of record: This standard is designed for correcting mistakes in an existing order or judgment, not for excusing a party's delay in taking a procedural step.
3. That the defendant had knowledge of death: The defendant's awareness of the death does not explain why the plaintiff himself failed to act, so relying on it would let a plaintiff escape consequences for his own default without any real justification.
4. Sufficient cause for not making the application within time: Requiring the plaintiff to show sufficient cause directly serves the purpose of distinguishing between a party who missed the deadline for a genuine reason and one who was simply negligent.

Only a showing of sufficient cause genuinely serves the underlying purpose of allowing honest litigants a second chance while still discouraging carelessness.

Therefore, the correct answer is Sufficient cause for not making the application within time.