IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 72 of 2009 Date of decision : 21.5.2010 ____________________________________________________ Smt. Bimla Devi …Petitioner. Versus Darshana Devi and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mrs. Devyani Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 6. None for respondent No.1. Kuldip Singh, Judge(Oral) The petitioner has filed this revision against the order dated 4.12.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge ( Jr. Division), Indora rejecting the application of the defendant/applicant for bringing on record legal representatives of deceased Ram Chand and Thuru Ram. 2. The facts in brief are that Ram Chand had filed suit for declaration and injunction against Thuru Ram and Bimla Devi who was impleaded as defendant No.2. Thuru Ram had contested the suit but Bimla Devi was proceeded exparte. The suit was decreed exparte on 18.6.1997. Bimla Devi had filed an application under Order 9 rule 13 _______________________ ¹ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes 2 CPC for setting aside exparte decree dated 18.6.1997. In that application it had come on record that Ram Chand and Thuru Ram had died. Bimla Devi had filed an application dated 13.9.2007 for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Ram Chand and Thuru Ram. This application was opposed by legal representatives of Ram Chand and Thuru Ram. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC as well as application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for bringing on record the legal representatives of Ram Chand and Thuru Ram by common order on 4.12.2008. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 4.12.2008 so far it relates to the dismissal of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC that has been separately assailed by way of appeal in the learned lower Appellate Court where the appeal is pending. He has submitted that the part of the order dated 4.12.2008 so far it relates to the dismissal of the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC was not appealable, therefore, against that part of order separate revision has been filed in this Court. 4. I have gone through the order dated 4.12.2008 wherein it has been observed that report regarding the death of Ram Chand and Thuru Ram was received in the Court below on 2.6.2007 and the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of Ram Chand and Thuru Ram was filed on 13.9.2007. It has also been observed in the order dated 4.12.2008 that no application for condonation of delay was filed alongwith the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. In reply to application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC at page 17 of the paper book, it has been stated that Ram Chand and 3 Thuru Ram had died much prior to the filing of the petition. The petitioner had filed application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC but wrong mentioning of the provision is no ground to deny relief to petitioner, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to the relief. It is the case of the a petitioner that Ram Chand and Thuru Ram had died before the filing of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC then the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC can be easily considered an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for substitution. The learned Civil Judge has thus erred in dismissing the application for bringing on record legal representatives of Ram Chand and Thuru Ram. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed and part of the order dated 4.12.2008 which relates to rejection of the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC is set aside. The legal representatives of Ram Chand and Thuru Ram mentioned in paragraph-4 of the application dated 13.9.2007 are ordered to be brought on record. Petition stands disposed of. May 21, 2010 (Kuldip Singh) (sks) Judge.