Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19377 Court No. - 8 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 74 of 2024 Revisionist :- Smt. Kumud Saxena And Others Opposite Party :- Shri Rakesh Saxena And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Shakeel Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Shakeel, learned counsel for the revisionists. 2. The instant civil revision under Section 115, C.P.C. has been preferred assailing the order dated 5.9.2024 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Court No. 43, Lucknow, whereby an application preferred by the defendant of the suit- respondent herein seeking his transposition has been allowed by the said order. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the impugned order is completely without jurisdiction inasmuch as admittedly the sole plaintiff, namely, Chandra Prakash Saxena expired on 28.3.2021. It is urged that the law is well settled that upon expiry of 150 days from the date of death the suit or the legal proceeding stands abated. In the instant case after 150 days at the end of the month of August 2021 the proceedings stood abated. At that point of time there was no application for substitution and even otherwise at a later stage no application had been moved by any of the parties either in terms of Order XXII Rule 3, read with Rule 9 C.P.C. or in any other provision. This being the admitted position, the proceedings at the end of the month of August 2021 stood abated and as a consequence thereof the application preferred by the private respondent dated 26.4.2022 purporting it to be under Order I Rule 10(2), C.P.C. seeking transposition was misconceived and could not have been allowed for the simple reason that in order to allow transposition the suit proceedings ought to have been pending. Since the proceedings abated, there was no suit pending. Accordingly the trial court has committed a grave jurisdictional error in allowing the application, as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and for more reasons than one the submission of the counsel for the revisionist appears to be misconceived- (i) At the outset it may be noticed that admittedly the sole plaintiff died on 28.3.2021. Admittedly, the application for transposition was moved on 26.4.2022 in light of the order passed by the Apex Court in re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 [(2021) 5 SCC 452 the period of limitation between 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022 had to be excluded. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the order passed by the Apex Court is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference: "In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a lim8itation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event of the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply." This being the situation, it cannot be said that the suit stood abated. (ii) Even otherwise if this issue is seen from another angle, it could not be disputed that the defendants of the said suit were already the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff. Once a legal heir/legal representative of a party is on record in any capacity, whatsoever, the issue of abatement does not arise. The court is fortified in its view in light of the decision of the Apex Court in Om Prakash Gupta @ Lalloowa (now deceased) & ors. v. Satish Chandra (now deceased), 2025 SCC Online 291. (iii) There is another way to look at the entire issue that once an application is moved under Order I Rule 10(2), C.P.C. for transposition, it is the pure discretion of the court to entertain such an application. It cannot be said that the court was divested of its jurisdiction to entertain such an application, specially in view of the fact that the proceedings had not abated inasmuch dates were being fixed in the suit from time to time. None of the defendants at any point of time had moved any application indicating the abatement of the suit. 5. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances where the defendants being the legal heir were already on record and they had moved an application under Order I Rule 10(2), C.P.C. seeking transposition, it cannot be said that the suit had abated and the Court did not have the jurisdiction to deal and pass orders on the said application. This Court is of the view that the order impugned does not suffer from any jurisdictional error to persuade this Court to entertain the revision. 6. For all the aforesaid reasons this court finds that the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is misconceived. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed at the admission stage. (Jaspreet Singh, J.) Order Date :- 5.4.2025 A.Nigam Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench