WPMS No. 388 of 2003 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed against which the defendant preferred an appeal. This appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The defendant-appellant accordingly filed an application for restoration of the appeal. While this application was under consideration, the plaintiff / opposite party moved an application to substitute the Manager of the deity. This application was allowed and the name of the Manager was substituted. The defendant, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. The contention of the petitioner that the substitution application could not be allowed at the behest of the plaintiff-respondent under the appeal. Further, assuming that the application could be allowed, the same could be allowed only after the restoration of the appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the plaintiff- respondent could only communicate the death of the Manager of the deity to the Court under Order 22 Rule 10A of the C.P.C. A substitution application could only be filed at the instance of the plaintiff-opposite party in the appeal of the defendant. The plaintiff could only bring the knowledge of the death of the Manager before the appellate court. Beyond that, the plaintiff could do nothing further and it was open to the defendant to move a substitution application which admittedly had not been done. Consequently, there has been a procedural error in the filing of the substitution application by the plaintiff-opposite party in the appeal. The Court below has also committed an error in allowing the application but such procedural error will not vitiate the order nor the Court is inclined to interfere in the said order since at the end of the day, the substitution has rightly been made. Consequently, the Court is not inclined to interfere. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with the observation that the lower appellate court will consider and decide the restoration application immediately. Certified copy of the order shall be sent by the Registry to the court below within ten days from today for necessary information and action. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 23.12.2011 Shiv