IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1408 of 2008 SRI RAJ KISHORE PRASAD Versus SMT.ASHA DEVI & ORS ----------- 3 17/9/2008 Heard counsel for the parties. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. By such order only the heirs of the sole appellant have been impleaded in his place under the provisions of Order-I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus this Court would find that only substantive justice was done and therefore the plea that an application for substitution was not filed by heirs within time will not be end of the matter. True it is that it has been held in the case of ‘Bhagwan Swaroop & Ors Vs. Mool Chand & Ors.’ reported in 1983 S.C. 355 that when a specific provision is made under Order 22 Rule 4 of the C.P.C, resort to the general provision like Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. may not be appropriate. But then laws of procedure are devised for advancing justice and not obstructing the same. The court below has noticed that impleading of the heirs of 2 the sole appellant was necessary for deciding the appeal and that the heirs were not aware of such appeal. That being so, this Court would find that after death of sole appellant if his heirs have now added as appellants to prosecute the appeal no jurisdictional error can be said to have been committed by the court below in exercise of its vast discretionary power under Order-1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. Accordingly, this civil revision application is wholly misconceived and is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar