N. C. MUKHERJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for setting aside the order dated 18th November 1976 passed in Lawazima by the Additional Registrar recording the note of abatement of the Rule as against the opposite party No. 1.

( 2 ) ON May 1, 1975 S. Wazir Singh, the opposite party No. 1, died intestate. From an affidavit-in-opposition it appeared that S. Wazir left behind besides Smt. Suren-dra Kaur another daughter and one son. In spite of the best efforts the petitioner could not ascertain their names and address. Subsequently the petitioner filed an application for substitution of the heirs and legal representatives pf the opposite party No. 1. The Additional Registrar recorded an order of abatement of the Rule as against the opposite party No 1 presumably on the ground that the said application for. substitution was not filed within 90 days. It is stated that the petitioner was advised by the learned Advo- cate that in cases of revision application the time to file an application for substitution will be three years and not 90 days. In the circumstances it is prayed that the order dated 18th November 1976 passed by the learned Additional Registrar recording the note of abatement of the Rule as against the opposite party No. 1 be set aside.

( 3 ) THE only point for consideration is whether an application for substitution of the legal heirs in a revision case is required to be filed within 90 days from the date of death or within three years. It may be stated at the beginning that there are conflicting decisions on this point.

( 4 ) MR. Subrata Ray, learned Advocate for the petitioner first refers to a Full Bench decision of Lahore High Court reported in AIR 1949 Lain 186, (Mohd. Sa-daat AH Khan v. The Administrator, Corporation of City of Lahore ). It has been held in this case :"order 22, Rule 3, C. P. C. is not applicable to revisions. It cannot be read in conjunction with Section 141 as Section 141 is so drafted as to enable a court to apply the procedure in regard to suits to such proceedings as are in pari materia with suits and thus original in character. A revision is very much unlike a suit. The procedure provided for suits would be mostly inapt and inappropriate to proceedings in revision. Further Article 176, Lim. Act, cannot be made applicable to a revision. Hence where a party going in revision dies pending the revision petition and an application is made by his legal representatives to be brought on record after the expiry of the period of 90 days, the petition for revision cannot be dismissed on the ground of abatement".

( 5 ) MR. Ray next refers to a Full Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court, (Babulal v. Mannilal ). It has been held in this case that Order 22, C. P. C. , applies to the case of suits and appeals. It does not govern the cases of revision application.

( 6 ) MR. Ray next refers to another Full Bench decision of Allahabad Higih Court, (Chandra-deo Pandey v. Sukhdeo Rai ). This case lays down that"an application for substitution of heirs in a revision is an application under Section 151, C. P. C. , and hence the period of limitation for bringing the heirs of deceased opposite party in revision is three years under Art 137 of the Lim. Act, 1963. "

( 7 ) MR. Ray also relies on a recent decision of a single Judge of our Court re- ported in (1976) 1 Cal LJ 492, (Md. Israil v. S M. Amiral Islam ). It has been held by R. Bhattacharya, J. ,"reading the provisions of Order 22 of the Code, it appears that there is a provision for substitution in suits and in appeals and some other matters but not in case of revisional application filed under Section 115 of the Code. Revisional applications are not original proceedings. This is clearly a discretionary matter with the court. If for disposal of revisional applications, the High Court thinks that for ends of justice any party is to be added or if at the instance of a party any substitution is necessary though belated, for ends of justice certainly an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document