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. Sufficient cause for not making the application within time.
• C. Error apparent on the face of record.
• D. That the defendant had knowledge of death.

Hint:

Remember the formula: Death of Party + Failure to Substitute Legal Representatives within Time = Abatement. Abatement + Sufficient Cause = Court may revive the suit under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The rationale behind Order XXII Rule 9 explains why sufficient cause is the deciding factor here. The rule exists so that a suit does not collapse merely because a party's heirs were not brought on record in time, provided the delay was genuine and not the result of negligence.

1. Decree not yet passed: irrelevant, since abatement is a procedural bar that arises independently of whether a decree has been drawn up.
2. Sufficient cause for the delay: this is precisely the safeguard Rule 9 builds in, letting a genuinely diligent litigant revive a suit that lapsed for a bona fide reason.
3. Error apparent on the face of record: this ground belongs to review petitions, not to reviving an abated suit.
4. Defendant's knowledge of death: the rule tests the applicant's conduct, not what the defendant privately knew.

Only sufficient cause for the delay fits the statutory test.

The correct answer is sufficient cause for not making the application within time.

Answer 2

Abatement under Order XXII of the CPC is a procedural consequence, not a permanent bar, and the Code deliberately builds in a mechanism to undo it when the failure to act in time was excusable. Looking at what each option would mean if it were the real test helps confirm which one the law actually uses.

1. Option (A): If the pendency of a decree controlled revival, a suit could be revived at will simply because judgment had not yet been delivered, regardless of how careless the plaintiff had been. That would make the limitation period on substitution meaningless, so this cannot be the rule.
2. Option (B): Making revival depend on proof of sufficient cause keeps the safeguard meaningful, a plaintiff who was genuinely prevented from acting in time (illness, lack of knowledge of the death, and similar reasons) can get the suit restored, while one who simply sat on the matter cannot. This matches how Order XXII Rule 9 is applied in practice.
3. Option (C): If an error apparent on the record were the test, abatement could almost never be set aside, since the abatement itself is usually not an error but a lawful consequence of delay. This confuses the ground for review with the ground for revival.
4. Option (D): If the defendant's knowledge of the death controlled the outcome, the plaintiff's own conduct would become irrelevant, which would reverse the burden the law actually places on the applicant seeking revival.

Only the sufficient cause standard keeps the limitation safeguard workable while still allowing genuine hardship cases to be revived, which is why it is the test applied under Order XXII Rule 9.

The correct answer is sufficient cause for not making the application within time.