JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Kumar Anish, learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. The present revision has been filed by Aslam Qadeer, defendant no.6, in Original Suit No.1003 of 2015 instituted by one Fatima Imran seeking a decree of specific performance of the contract against respondent nos.1 to 3 (defendant nos.1 to 3 in original suit) with further prayer that respondent nos.1 to 3 along with respondent nos.4 to 7 (defendant nos.5 to 8 in original suit) be directed to execute the sale deed.

3. During the pendency of the suit, Nayyar Jahan Raza (defendant no.1) died on 30.01.2021. After the death of Nayyar Jahan Raza, plaintiff/respondent no.8 filed substitution application 144A1/1 under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for substituting the legal heirs of Late Nayyar Jahan Raza.

4. During the pendency of substitution application 144A1/1, Irfan Khan one of the heirs of the Late Nayyar Jahan Raza also died on 30.05.2021. After the death of Ifran Khan, plaintiff/respondent no.8 filed an amendment application 146Ga seeking amendment in the substitution application 144A1/1 which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 20.04.2022.

5. The order dated 20.04.2022 was challenged by the revisionist through Civil Revision No.65 of 2022 which was allowed by this Court vide judgement dated 27.06.2022 with liberty to the plaintiff/respondent no.8 to file a separate substitution application to substitute the heirs of Irfan Khan.

6. Thereafter, plaintiff/respondent no.8 again filed amendment application 175A, to which revisionist filed an objection stating therein that the said application is not maintainable as plaintiff/respondent no.8 was supposed to file separate substitution application because of the order of this Court dated 27.06.2022.

7. On the objection of the revisionist, application 175A was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 02.09.2022 with liberty to the plaintiff/respondent no.8 to file a fresh substitution application under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C.

8. The plaintiff/respondent no.8 after the order of the trial court dated 02.09.2022 filed fresh substitution application 179A under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. for substituting the heirs of Late Irfan Khan.

9. The application 179A was objected to by the revisionist by filing an objection that application 179A under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. was not maintainable and is liable to be rejected as no application condoning the delay in filing the substitution application 179A has been filed. It is also stated that even otherwise this Court vide order dated 27.06.2022 directed the plaintiff/respondent no.8 to file a separate substitution application for substituting the heirs of late Irfan Khan within six weeks, and since six weeks period has expired and no delay condonation application has been filed, therefore, the said application was not maintainable and thus, the suit is abated against late Irfan Khan.

10. The trial court vide order dated 3.10.2022 allowed both applications i.e. application 179A and application 144A. So far as application 144A1/1 regarding the substitution of heirs of Late Nayyar Jahan Raza is concerned, the revisionist has no grievance. In the present revision, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 03.10.2022 to the extent it allows application 179A of the plaintiff/respondent no.8 to substitute the heirs of Late Irfan Khan.

11. The submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist only with respect to the order of the trial court allowing the application 179A. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial court has committed jurisdictional error in allowing the said application inasmuch as the application 179A was not maintainable as the limitation for filing the substitution application to implead the heirs of Late Irfan Khan has expired and no application for condoning the delay has been filed with the substitution application. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further urged that as