This is an application for substitution of the heirs of the opposite party no. 1 and 7 who have died after filing of the Civil Revision application. The main application is directed against the order dated the 25th November, 1976 and was filed on the 22nd of December, 1976, The opposite party no.1 died on the 26th of January, 1977 and opposite party no. 7 on the 17 January, 1977. The substitution application has been filed on the 8th of July, 1977.

2. On behalf of some of the heirs sought to be substituted, Mr. Shambhu Prasad has contended that Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to a Civil Revision application and since the petition for substitution has been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation the same can not be allowed.

3. When the present application was placed for orders before Mr. Justice Shambhu Prasad Singh, sitting singly he referred it to a Division Bench, since the question has not been decided authoritatively by our High Court. It has, accordingly, been placed for orders before us.

4. In support of the proposition that no question of abatement arises in a Civil Revision application, Mr. N.K. Prasad has relied upon the decisions of several High Courts, in the case of Chandradeo Pandey and others V. Sukhdeo Rai and others, Bubulal and another V. Manilal, Mohd. Sadat Ali Khan V. The Administrator, Corporation of City of Lahore Union of India V. Ganga Dutta and others and Manickam and others V. MR. R.M. Ramanathan and others. He has further referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Babu Laxmi Narain Singh and others V. Satya Narain Singh and others where, according to the learned counsel, the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court has been followed.

5. The decisions relied upon on behalf of the petitioners do support their case. Mr. Shambhu Prasad, in reply thereto referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankar Ramchandra Abhyanker V. Krishnaji Dattatrayat Bapat 7 and contended that in view of the observations made therein that the expression 'appeal' includes a revision, Order 22 must be held to be applicable to the present case. He further relied on the judgment of the Privy Council in Nagendra Nath Dey and another V. Suresh Chandra Dey and others, P. P. P. Chidambara Nadar V. C. P. A. Rama Nadar and others and a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bacharaj Nyahalchand Marwadi V. Bapaji Tukararn Avati. The correctness of the decisions mentioned by Mr. N.K. Prasad has been challenged.

6. In Nagendra Nath Dey and another ; Suresh Chandra Dey and others, the question which arose related to the interpretation of article 182 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1908. In the third column it was mentioned that period of limitation would begin to run from the date of the final decree or order of the appellate court where there has been an appeal. While construing this article it was held that even in a case where a revision application had been filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to the High Court, the judgment therein would be included in the term the final decree or order of the appellate Court. In Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar V. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat, the question was whether the High Court could interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the order passed In a proceeding under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 when a petition for revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the same order had been previously dismissed by the High Court. The contention of the respondents in the writ application was based on the ground that the impugned order had merged in the judgment of the High Court in the Civil Revision case. While dealing with this aspect of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the aid of the High Court on the revisional side is invoked on the basis that it is a superior court and it can interfere for the purpose of rectifying the error, and section 115 of t