JUDGMENT Randhir Singh, J. - This is an application for the substitution of the heirs of the opposite-party No. 1, Kalbe Haider, who is said to have died on the 4th June, 1952. 2. It appears that an application u/s 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act was made for the redemption of a mortgage dated the 1st of October, 1892, on the allegations that the mortgage had been paid off and that the applicant was entitled to recovery of possession of the mortgaged property. The application was contested on the ground that the mortgage had not been paid off. The trial court found that the mortgage had been discharged, and decreed the case for redemption. The opposite-parties then went up in appeal and the appellate court modified the decree passed by the trial court and held that a sum of Rs. 1624 was due under the mortgage and redemption was ordered on payment of this sum. The applicant then came up in revision to this Court and the application for revision (Section 115 Application No. 73 of 1944) was admitted. On the 4th of June, 1952, Kalbe Hyder, Opposite-Party No. 1, died and the application, which is now before me, was made on the 12th of January, 1953. The application was rejected by a learned Judge of this Court but, after the order had been passed, it was pointed out that there was a Full Bench ruling of the Lahore High Court in support of the contention that Order 22, Rule 3, CPC was not applicable to proceedings in revision and the learned Judge then passed an order that notices should go to the Opposite-Parties. Notices were then issued to the opposite parties and some of them have been served. 3. The main contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicants is that as Order 22 is not applicable to proceedings in revision, there was no limitation for making an application for the substitution of heirs and as such the present application, even though made after more that 6 months, could still be maintained, and in support of this contention a Full Bench ruling of the Lahore High Court reported in AIR 1949 Lahore 186 has been cited. In this reported case it has been held that Order 22, Rule 3, CPC is not applicable to revisions. In this reported case it has been held that Order 22, Rule 3, CPC is not applicable to revisions. As against this, there is a Single Bench case ruling of this Court reported in Ram Datt Singh v. Ajodhia Singh 1950 A.L.J. 878 based on an earlier Avadh Chief Court case reported in AIR 1948 84 (Oudh) , in which it was held that a revision application could be dismissed if the legal representatives of a deceased party were not brought on record within a reasonable time. A perusal of the ruling of the Lahore High Court and the two rulings of the Avadh Chief Court and of this Court, however, shows that there is in essence no deference in the views of the Lahore High Court and this Court. In all these cases it has been held that Order 22, Rule 3, CPC does not apply to revisions and they cannot be made to abate on the ground that an application for substitution of heirs was not made within a prescribed time limit. The ground on which this Court has held that a revision should be dismissed in such circumstances is that a party should apply for substitution of heirs within a reasonable time, and if this is not done, it would not be proper to proceed with the revision. 4. No doubt, no time limit for making an application for substitution has been prescribed in revisions, but it has been held that an application for revision should not be proceeded with if the legal representatives of a deceased party are not brought on record within a reasonable time. In the present case the Respondent No. 1 died in June, 1952 and no application was made till 12th of January, 1953. No satisfactory explanation of the delay was also given. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the application for substitution of heirs was made within a reasonable time. 5. The application for substitution of heirs is, therefore, dismissed and as the decree passed by the lower Court is indivisible, the revision cannot be proceeded with against the other opposite parties also. The revision application is also, therefore, dismissed. 6. I, however, make no order as to costs. 7. As the application for revision has been dismissed, civil miscellaneous application 154 of 1954 is also dismissed.