1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 121 OF 2008 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 161 OF 2008 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 121 OF 2008 __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, apperances, Court' s orders or Court's or Judge's orders directions and Registrar's orders Ms.Geeta Shastri, adv.for appellants. Mr.H.V. Chande, adv.for respondents. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota J. Dated : 30 th August, 2008. P.C. : 1. By this Civil Revision Application, the applicant challenges the order dated 15th December 2007 passed by the Bombay City Civil court granting exemption to the respondent under Order 22 Rule 4 Sub-Rule 4 of C.P.C. from substituting legal representatives of deceased defendant no.2. Ms.Shastri, concedes that the Civil Revision Application is not maintainable. Hence it is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. 2. Even on merits, it is seen that there 2 is no substance whatsoever in the application. The respondent had sought exemption under Order 22 Rule 4 sub-rule 4 of C.P.C. from substituting legal representatives of deceased defendant no.2 on the ground that deceased defendant no.2 had failed to file written statement to contest the suit. The fact that there was no written statement filed, is not disputed. Ms. Shastri, relying upon a decision of Single Judge of this court in the case of Chandra Lachmandas Raheja V/s. Nancy Francis Rego and Ors. reported in 2007(4) BCR page 299, submits that, it was necessary for the applicant to mention in the application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 sub-rule 4, that the names of heirs of deceased defendant no.2 are not known to him. The provision of Order 22 Rule 4 sub-rule 4 does not require that, such a statement be made in the application. Besides, the facts of the decision cited above are entirely different from the facts of the instant. In that case, a Written 3 statement had been filed by the Constituted Attorney of the deceased defendant. Therefore, it was held that the basic condition for grant of exemption was not satisfied. The learned Judge has rightly exercised his discretion in grant of exemption. There is no need to interfere with the same. Hence, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 3. With the dismissal of the Civil Revision Application, the Civil Application does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. [JUDGE]