JUDGMENT Brijraj Narain, President Where one of two or more Plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving Plaintiff or Plaintiffs alone, or a sole Plaintiff or sole surviving Plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased Plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. I should like to observe that in terms Order 22, Rule 3 applies to suits only and had it not been clearly stated in Rule 11 of that Order that the word "plaintiff'' shall include an Appellant, the word "defendant" a Respondent, and the word "suit" an appeal, the penal provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 could not be held to have been attracted to appeals. By virtue of Rule 11, however, the provisions of Order 22, Rule 3 were extended to appeals with the result that they would also abate in the same manner as a suit would have done merely by passage of time if no applications were made to bring Appellant's legal representatives on the record within the time prescribed by law viz., by Article 176, Limitation Act. It would be noticed, however, that no reference has been made in this Order to revisions and but for the attempt which is being made to press Section 141, Code of Civil Procedure, into service it would not have been possible to urge that the sanction contained in Sub-rule (2) of Order 22, Rule 3 would apply to revisions as well... but it must be pointed out that when referring to the limit of time within which an application to bring the legal representative of a deceased Plaintiff or Appellant has to be made, recourse must be had to the provisions of the Limitation Act although no express reference to them is made in Rule 3 of Order 22, for, in the absence of any specific provision either in the CPC or in any other special enactment which is declared to apply to such an application, one must necessarily look to the provisions of the Limitation Act for the purpose of ascertaining the limitation within which it has to be made. The only Article to which our attention was invited in this connection was Article 176. The only Article to which our attention was invited in this connection was Article 176. But as would be seen from its words it only applies to an application made to bring the legal representative of a deceased Plaintiff (which means in a suit) or of a deceased Appellant (which means in an appeal) on record. There is thus nothing in this Article which would attract its provisions to a revision and since it is not possible to add to the words used in an Article of the Limitation Act and to extend its operation by analogy or otherwise to anything which is not covered by the description given in Col. 1 of that article, it would follow that the mere application of Section 141, Code of Civil Procedure, to a revision petition would not satisfy Learned Counsel for the Respondent as the section does not provide for limitation; and even if Order 22, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, could be held to extend to revisions by virtue of Section 141 of the Code, a period of limitation not provided for by Article 176 (which contains no provision in regard to a revision) could not be applied to it. By reading the provisions of Section 141 in conjunction with Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code, the provisions of the Limitation Act could not be amended and that is after assuming, without conceding, that the terms of Section 141 could apply to revisions. In other words, on a construction of Article 176, Limitation Act, alone, I am of the view that it cannot be applied to revisions. Nor is the contention advanced by Learned Counsel for the Respondent that Section 141, Code of Civil Procedure, applies to petitions for revision possessed, in my opinion, of any force. That section applies the procedure provided in the Code in regard to suits (the omission of the word "appeal" is significant) to all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. In my view, the section is so drafted as to enable a Court to apply the procedure in regard to suits to such proceedings as are in pari materia with suits and thus original in character. A revision is very much unlike a suit although it may share many common features with an appeal. The procedure provided for suits would be mostly inapt and inappropriate to proceedings in revision. A revision is very much unlike a suit although it may share many common features with an appeal. The procedure provided for suits would be mostly inapt and inappropriate to proceedings in revision. I would for the above reasons hold that Order 22, Rule 3, CPC is not applicable to revisions and a petition for revision could not therefore be dismissed on the ground of abatement.... I hold that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to revision petitions. Consequently, there is no question of the revision petition abating because the application to substitute Mt. Gulabi in place of Dillu deceased was filed more than 90 days after Dillu's death. Final Result : Dismissed