JUDGMENT Ghulam Hasan, C.J. and Kidwai, J. - These are two connected revisions u/s 115 of the CPC from two orders dated 28th March, 1944, passed by the Civil Judge of Pratabgarh ordering substitution and setting aside the abatement. 2. The pedigree set out below is essential to a proper understanding of the case. r Shah Mohammad 1 Shah Mohammad Hisam Ata 1 Shah Shah Shah Saleha Mohd. Mohd. Mohd. Bibi Nairn Alim Halim 1 Ata. Ata. Ata. Shah Mohd. j Husain | r Jafri. ; _J Shah Mohd. Jamil Ata. Shahldohd. Hafiz Ata. 1. r ^ 1 Shah Mohd. Jalil Ata. 1 Amina Bibi. 3. These applications have arisen out of the following circumstances. 4. There were two sets of Plaintiffs in the case. Suit No. 22 of 1935 was filed by Shah Mohammad Alim Ata, Shah Mohammad Halim Ata and Saleha Bibi. On Saleha Bibi's death, Shah Mohammad Husain Jafri was substituted as her heir. The present applicant, Anand Behari Lal was a Defendant and Shah Mohammad Nairn Ata was also imp leaded as a Defendant. The second suit No. 25 of 1935 was filed by Shah Mohammad Jamil Ata and Shab Mohammad Hafiz Ata, the Defendants being the same. The suits were stayed on the 21st December, 1935, because of an application filed by Shah Mohammad Naim Ata u/s 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act. A similar application had been filed by Shah Mohammad Halim Ata and others but this application was rejected by the Board of Revenue in 1939. Shah Mohammad Nairn Ata's application proceeded to trial and a decree in favor of Anand Behari Lal who was the claimant, was passed of 18th March. 1944. Anand Behari Lal has filed a First Appeal (No. 64 of 1944) against that decree. While this litigation was pending three deaths took place. Basanti Devi, the predecessor-in-interest of Anand Behari Lal died on the 24th January, 1938, Shah Mohammad Jamil Ata on the 20th April, 1939, Saleha Bibi on 8th November, 1943. An application to substitute Shah Mohammad Husain Jafri upon the death of Saleha Bibi was made on the 31ht January, 1944 and was allowed. In both suits an application was made on 2nd March, 1944, by the Plaintiffs of those suits to substituted Anand Behari Lal in place of Mst Basanti Devi, deceased. An application to substitute Shah Mohammad Husain Jafri upon the death of Saleha Bibi was made on the 31ht January, 1944 and was allowed. In both suits an application was made on 2nd March, 1944, by the Plaintiffs of those suits to substituted Anand Behari Lal in place of Mst Basanti Devi, deceased. The application was obviously time barred and the delay was sought to be explained by the fact that it could not be made earlier as the suits for redemption had been stayed. It was also mentioned. that decrees had been passed in the Encumbered Instates Act proceedings and it was prayer that the Commissioner should be directed to prepare accounts and submit report and these regular suits should be decided along with the case under the Encumbered Estates Act. Two other applications were made on the 25th March, 1944, purporting to be u/s 151 and Order 22, Rule. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. be these it was pointed out that if in the opinion of the Court the suits had abated, the Court should set aside the abatement for the reasons mentioned in the applications. The learned Civil Judge considered the applications and held that there was sufficient cause for the Plaintiffs not applying earlier than they did but that even if the suits had abated by reason of non-substitution within the time allowed by law, he was prepared to condone the delay as in his opinion there were good reasons for doing so. On this view of the matter, he set aside the abatement and ordered the substitution of Anand Behari Lal in place of the deceased Basanti Devi in both the suits. Being dissatisfied with this order, Anand Behari Lal has filed the two revisions. 5. We do not think it necessary to enter into the merits of the case with a view to determining whether the learned Civil Judge was justified in setting aside the abatement. It is sufficient in our opinion to dispose of the revision applications upon the preliminary ground that they are not maintainable by reason of the fact that no case has been decided. No useful purpose would, in our opinion, be served by multiplying authorities as the decision in Drig Raj Kunwar Sri Amar Krishna Narain Singh 1916 O.A. 140 : A.W.R. (C.C.) 140, is decisive on the question. No useful purpose would, in our opinion, be served by multiplying authorities as the decision in Drig Raj Kunwar Sri Amar Krishna Narain Singh 1916 O.A. 140 : A.W.R. (C.C.) 140, is decisive on the question. That was a case in which an order dismissing an application for the appointment of a guardian ad item under Order 32, Rule 15 Code of Civil Procedure. was not held be to a 'case decided' and hence the revision was held to be not maintainable. All the relevant previous decisions in Oudh were reviewed at length and the principle laid down was that in order that a proceeding may be regarded as a 'case decided', it must be shown that it is a proceeding independent of the suit and entirely dissociated from it. We think a proceeding relating to substitution of a legal representative in place of a deceased Plaintiff is a proceedings in the suit and a suit cannot be proceeded with unless a legal representative is substituted to carry on the suit. We consider it unnecessary to express any opinion upon the question whether an order setting aside an abatement can be challenged in an appeal against the decree in the original suit- Once it is held that the proceeding in substitution is not a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure. the applicant is at once out of Court. We accordingly hold that these applications are not maintainable and they are dismissed with costs.