Revision petitions filed against deceased respondents are a nullity, and amendments for substitution are not permissible.

1. The petitioner Shri Abdul Wahed filed this Civil revision petition against Shri Sukdev Wasti and it was against the decree and judgment of the District Judge in misc. civil appeal No. 50 of 1961 dated 15-12-1961 by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the munsiff, Agartala directing the detention of the petitioner and another in civil prison for violation of the interim injunction passed by him in T.S. No. 87 of 1959. The plaintiff Shri Sukdev Wasti had died on 12-1-1960 and his heirs namely his widow, his son Bhagabati Prasad Wasti and his two daughters had come on record as his legal representatives on 3-2-60 and the order complained against in this petition was passed against the petitioner by the munsiff on 10-6-1961 at the instance of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The civil misc. appeal before the District Judge was filed by the petitioner against Shri Bhagabati Prasad Wasti, the son of the deceased Sukdev Wasti. But in the revision petition filed on 27-1-1962 in this Court, the petitioner impleaded the deceased Sukdev Wasti himself as the sole respondent. On 10-5-1962, he has come forward with a petition for amendment of the memo of the revision petition by striking out the name of Sukdev Wasti and by adding his legal representatives as the respondents stating that from the return made by the process peon it appeared that Sukdev Wasti was dead. The legal representatives of Sukdev Wasti on whom notices were served of this petition have now come forward and they seriously oppose the amendment and state that the revision petition filed against a person who was dead two years before the filing was a nullity and that it cannot be amended by substituting the names of the heirs.

2. I think the contention of the legal representatives is well founded. The petitioner knew even on 3-2-60 when the matter was pending before the munsiff that Sukdev Wasti was dead and that his legal representatives had come on record. He knew that the very order complained of by him was obtained by the legal representatives. He filed the appeal before the District Judge against one of the legal representatives. That being the case, his present statement that it appeared from the process server's return that Sukdev Wasti was dead trying to show thereby that he knew of the death only from the process server's return cannot be accepted. A revision petition filed against a dead person is a nullity and no question of substituting the names of the legal representatives in place of the deceased person arises at all. Order XXII, CPC, will not apply to such a case. It is only when the revision petition is filed against a living person that it can be stated that such a petition is before Court and a revision petition against a dead person is void and of no legal effect. If the memo of the revision petition is sought to be amended, it will mean even if amended, that a fresh revision petition is filed on the date of the amendment against the legal representatives of the deceased person. In order to allow any such amendment which will amount to permission to file a fresh revision petition against the legal representatives, the amendment petition has to be brought within the period of limitation namely 90 days from the date of the decree or order of the lower Court. In the present case, I find that the judgment of the District Judge was dated 15-12-1961 and the copy of the same was delivered to the petitioner on 28-12-1961. Thus the present application for amendment filed on 10-5-1962 makes it hopelessly barred by limitation.

3. In such a case, S.5 of the Limitation Act may apply. But no application under the said section for condonation of the delay has been brought by the petitioner. I