The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to include the legal representatives of a deceased party within the prescribed time can result in a revision application being barred by limitation.

R. B. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the order dated 24. 10. 1981 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and order dated 26. 10. 1985 have been challenged.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the private respondents.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the petitioner had filed a revision on 5. 1. 1982 against the judgment dated 24. 10. 1981 passed by Vth Additional munsif, Pilibhit in Case No. 39 of 1981 arising out of Original Suit No. 323 of 1960, Sri Krishna kumar v. Ram Kumar and Ors. Original Suit No. 323 of 1968 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24. 10. 1981 and the application for setting aside the order of the dismissal of the suit was rejected by the impugned order dated 24. 10. 1981. One Om Kumar, opposite party in the revision application had died on 18. 9. 1981. i. e. , prior to the filinig of the revision application on 5. 1. 1982 and the application paper No. 19a was moved on 17. 5. 1982 with the allegations that due to mistake, name of Om Kumar existed in the array of the parties in the revision although he had already died on 18. 9. 1981 and earlier a prayer was made for necessary amendment to bring on record the legal representatives of Om Kumar. The opposite parties/private respondents in this writ petition filed the objections and pleaded that the application was liable to be dismissed because Om Kumar had already died before filing the revision and limitation for filing the revision against the heirs of Sri Ram Kumar had already lapsed. It is pertinent to mention here that Original Suit No. 323 of 1968 was filed in the Court of Munsif for relief of injunction restraining the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties to the revision from seeking eviction of the applicant-plaintiff in execution of ejectment decree passed in Original Suit No. 53 of 1982. The ejectment decree was passed against the father, mother and elder brother of the applicant-plaintiff. The decree of the ejectment was even confirmed by this Court in Second appeal and it was claimed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the decree of eviction has been duly executed and the possession of the disputed property was obtained long ago, and this claim on behalf of the opposite parties was not disputed by applicant-revisionist.

( 4 ) IT has been observed by the Special Judge/ Revisional Authority in its order dated 26. 10. 1985 which also noted the contentions of the petitioner that the provisions of Order XXII. C. P. C. was not applicable to the revision proceedings and, therefore, there could not be an abatement of revision application and merely because by mis-description, a dead person was mentioned as one of the parties in the array of parties of the revision application, it could not be said that the revision application is barred by limitation for seeking the required amendment within time. The contention of the opposite parties herein were also noted by the Revisional Authority that the deceased Om Kumar was a necessary party to the revision application and amendment accordingly for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased beyond the period of limitation, makes itself the revision barred by time and the application for substitution could not have been allowed.

( 5 ) IT has also been noted by the revision authority that, admittedly, the application of amendment or substitution of legal representative of Om Kumar was recorded after expiry of the period of limitation provided for a revision application and Om Kumar was one of the successor-in-interest of the decree-holder and was no doubt, a necessary party to these proceedings also and when he had died prior to the Institution of the revision application, the filing of the revision application, without making his legal representatives as party to the revision proceedings, had the effect of making the revision incompetent and also that the revision against