R. B. MISRA, J. :- These two Civil Miscellaneous Applications arise out of Civil Revision No.1777 of 1968. They came up for disposal before a learned Single Judge of this Court. He has referred these applications to a larger Bench because he felt that there was a conflict of opinion between two Division Bench decisions on the question whether an application in revision would abate if no substitution application was made within ninety days of the date of death of a deceased party. In the Union of India v. Shanti Swaroop, AIR 1966 All 530, a Division Bench took the view that since there is no period of limitation prescribed for an application for substitution in revision, it can be made at any time so long as the application in revision is pending. A contrary view was taken by another Division Bench of Oudh Chief Court in Khuda Bux v. Maha Nand Tewari, AIR 1948 Oudh 84. It was held that if after the admission of a revision application one of the parties dies and an application to bring his legal representatives on record is not presented within a reasonable time (which in the case of such an application is the time mentioned in Order XXII, Civil Procedure Code), the revision application will abate in the sense that the proceeding shall cease unless good cause is shown for the delay. This is how these two applications have come up before this Bench.

2. The material facts to bring out the controversy involved in these two applications lie in a narrow compass. The applicants filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, Ghazipur for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the opposite parties from interfering with their possession over an agricultural plot. The claim was resisted by the opposite parties on grounds inter alia that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Munsif framed a preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction and held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. He accordingly ordered the return of the plaint to the applicants for presentation to the proper Court. The applicants sought to challenge that order by filing a Miscellaneous Appeal, but the appeal failed. The petitioners thereupon filed a revision before this Court which was numbered as Revision No.1777 of 1968.

3. It appears that during the pendency of the Revision, Ram Nandan Upadhya (Opposite Party No.10) died, and Miscellaneous Application No.4130 of 1970 to bring his heirs on the record was filed by the applicants on 10th July, 1970. In this application, supported by an affidavit, it was alleged that Ram Nandan Upadhya died on 13th April, 1970. The opposite parties resisted the application and alleged in the counter-affidavit that Ram Nandan Upadhya had died on 31st December, 1969. In view of this allegation and counter-allegation with regard to the date of the death of Ram Nandan Upadhya, an issue was remitted to the Court below to find out whether Ram Nandan Upadhya died on 13th April, 1970 or on 31st December, 1969. The Court below returned the finding that he died on 31st December, 1969. The applicants were permitted to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay, whereupon they filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No.14638 of 1970 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

In order to appreciate the point involved in the case it would be convenient at this stage to refer to relevant provisions of Order XXII, Civil Procedure Code and the relevant Articles of Limitation Act.

4. Order XXII, Rule 3(1) provides for bringing the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff on the record when the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, and sub-rule (2) thereof provides the penalty for not bringing the heirs of the deceased plaintiff on record within the period of limitation prescribed. Order XXII, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code provides for substitution of a deceased defendant where the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or de