This suit was brought by the plaintiff who alleged that he and Rajagopal Mudali were trustees of the property in dispute. The plaintiff died, and the question now before us is whether Rajagopal Mudali was rightly allowed by the District Munsif to conduct the suit as plaintiff, by transferring him from the list of defendants to the position of a plaintiff. O. 22, R. 3 does not in terms apply but there can be no question here that the right to sue was jointly in the plaintiff and the petitioner in the lower Court. On the death of the plaintiff that right vested in the petitioner in the lower Court, and he is entitled to conduct the suit.

As R. 3 of O. 22, does not apply, it cannot be said to have abated within the meaning of that rule. Art. 176 of the Limitation Act would not apply but the article that would be applicable is Art. 18

1. The contingency such as happened in this suit is not expressly and specifically dealt with, by the Code of Civil Procedure. There can be no doubt that the Court has the power of transposing the defendant as the plaintiff, in the circumstances disclosed in this case. O. 1, R. 11, gives general power to the Court to give the conduct of the suit to such persons as it deems proper, and the present would be eminently a fit case for the exercise of that power.

We therefore dismiss both the Revision Petitions with costs.