JUDGMENT : B.K. Ray, J. - This revision filed at the instance of Defendant No. 1 in T.S. No. 5 of 1966 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack arises in the following circumstances: The Plaintiff, opp. party No. 1 instituted the aforesaid suit for ?partition which has been transferred to the Court of the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack. During the pendency of the suit, Defendant Nos. 27 and 29 died on 2-4-1967 and 20-7-1967 respectively. The Plaintiff did not take any step to substitute the legal representatives of the said two Defendants, and accordingly, the suit abated against them by July and October, 1967. On 27-3-1969, the Plaintiff filed a petition under Order 22 Rule 9, CPC along with a petition u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased Defendants, for setting aside the abatements and for condonation of delay. The learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge dismissed these applications by his order dated 20-9-1969 after coming to a finding that the Plaintiff failed to explain the delay. Thereafter, on 30-9-1969 the Plaintiff filed another petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and u/s 151, CPC to implead the legal representatives of the aforesaid deceased Defendants. The objection of Defendant No. 1 to the petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2), CPC was not accepted by the trial Court which allowed the petition of the Plaintiff by its order dated 8-12-1969. This Civil revision has been filed challenging the aforesaid order. 2. Mr. B. Harichandan, learned Counsel for Petitioner contends that once an application for substitution has been dismissed on contest, it is no longer open to the Court, below to by-pass the order of dismissal of the petition for substitution by exercising jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure. There is sufficient force in this contention of Mr. Harichandan. Order 22, CPC makes provision for substitution of the legal representatives of a party to the suit who dies during the pendency of the suit. It also provides that in the event of non-substitution of the legal representative of a deceased party, the suit abates as against the deceased party. There is no dispute that in some cases this partial abatement against the deceased party may amount to a dismissal of the entire suit. It also provides that in the event of non-substitution of the legal representative of a deceased party, the suit abates as against the deceased party. There is no dispute that in some cases this partial abatement against the deceased party may amount to a dismissal of the entire suit. The said Order also provides that once a mit abates due to non-substitution of the legal representative of a deceased party, a fresh suit is barred on the same cause of action. Order 1 Rule 10, CPC empowers the Court to enable it to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involving in the suit to add anybody as a party to the suit either as Plaintiff or Defendant. The jurisdiction conferred on the Court under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC is quite distinct from the jurisdiction conferred under Order 22, Code of Civil Procedure. Under Order 22, Code of Civil Procedure, when a suit abates against a deceased Defendant, a fresh suit is barred on the same cause of action, and therefore, a valuable right accrues to the legal representatives of the deceased Defendant against the Plaintiff. It can never be the intention of the Code to take away this valuable right accrued to the legal representatives of the deceased Defendant by taking resort to the provision contained in Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure. To hold otherwise would amount to going against the scheme of the Code and would put the litigants to great hardship and prejudice. Therefore; I am of opinion that the trial Court having dismissed the Plaintiff?s application for substitution, it had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC and to allow the same. By allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has simply annulled its very own order previously passed while rejecting the Plaintiff?s application for substitution. This view of mine finds support from an unreported decision of this Court in Civil Revision No. 203 of 1970 decided on 23-12-19701 in which his Lordship R.N. Misra, J has held as follows: It is not the scheme of the Code that an order made by a Court after hearing parties can be vacated by invoking another provision in the Code which vests discretion in the Court with a view to giving justice to the litigants. 3. 3. In the result, therefore, the civil revision is allowed to costs and the impugned order of the trial Court is vacated. Final Result : Allowed