JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C. J. 1. This revision is directed against an order dismissing an application for substitution of the heirs of deceased defendant No. 1 and declaring that the suit has abated in toto. 2. It appears that the plaintiff-applicant filed a suit for an order that the dispute between the parties be referred to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement between the parties and for a decree in favour of the plaintiff in accordance with the award of the arbitrator. During the pendency of the suit Ayodhya Prasad, defendant No. 1, died April 10, 1977. Within the prescribed period of limitation, the plaintiff, on May 24, 1977, filed an application stating that Ayodhya Prasad had left two sons Lakshmi Narain and Prem Narain who were already parties as defendants 3 and 4. Be prayed for consequential amendments in the array of parties. An affidavit in support of this application was filed by the plaintiff on September 14, 1977. 3. The defendants opposed the application- He alleged that Ayodhya Prasad, defendant No. 1 had left his widow Smt. Chandra Devi who was also his heir and legal representative entitled to be substituted in place of Ayodhya Prasad. The plaintiff had not sought her substitution. 4. The trial court held that the plaintiff knew that Smt. Chandra Devi was the widow of defendant No. 1 Ayodhya Prasad. He, however, did not apply for her substitution in his place. This lapse was not due to any bonafide error. Failure to implead one of the heirs inspite of full knowledge resulted in the abatement of the suit. It was further held that the suit was for referring the matter to arbitration. The decree was not severable as against defendant No. 1. Hence the entire suit abated. Accordingly the suit was declared to have abated as a whole. Order 22 Rule 4 CPC provides the procedure in case of death of one of several defendants. It requires the court, on an application made in that behalf, to cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a party and to proceed with the suit. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 provides that where within the time limited by the law no application is made, the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant. 5. It requires the court, on an application made in that behalf, to cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a party and to proceed with the suit. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 provides that where within the time limited by the law no application is made, the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant. 5. Sub-rule (1) makes it clear that where one of two or more defendants dies and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, an application has to be made for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. 6. Here the plaintiff filed an application on May 24, 1977, within the prescribed time because the defendant No. 1 died on April 10, 1977. The application stated the defendants 3 and 4 were the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 1 and that requisite amendments be made. The fact that Ayodhya Prasad deceased defendant had left a widow Smt. Chandra Devi was neither mentioned nor was any prayer made for her impleadment as a party. On the findings it was apparent that the plaintiff was aware of the existence of the widow and for reasons best known to him he did not pray in the application that she may also be Impleaded as a party. The question is whether in such circumstances the suit will abate. It is to be noted that the court below has not dismissed or even dispose of the substitution application filed by the plaintiff. It has, on the view that the plaintiff did not pray for impleadment of the widow, abated the suit as a whole without disposing of the application. That obviously was wrong because sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of Order 22 CPC provides for the abatement of the suit against the deceased defendant only "where by the time limited by law no application is made under sob-rule (1)". It can be said that no application has been made when either an application has not, in fact, been made or where an application, if made, is dismissed. Here an application was made within time and it has not been disposed of. Hence the order for abatement of the suit even against the deceased defendant was not valid. 7. It can be said that no application has been made when either an application has not, in fact, been made or where an application, if made, is dismissed. Here an application was made within time and it has not been disposed of. Hence the order for abatement of the suit even against the deceased defendant was not valid. 7. Under Order 22 Rule 4, the court acquires jurisdiction to cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a party on an application made in that behalf. The phrase 'in that behalf would mean with a view to cause the legal representative to be made a party. So long such an application has been made, the court is to cause the legal representative to be made a party. Here the two sons were heirs, and were already defendants. The estate of the deceased defendant was represented, though partly. It was all the more feasible that the court gave the plaintiff an opportunity to add the name of the widow as a proposed heir. 8. The marginal note of Order 22 Rule 4 reads 'procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant'. In respect of procedural provisions the settled view is as expressed in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425 , para 16 :- "Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is procedure, something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends, not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties, not a thing designed to trip people up." The procedural provisions should not be used as traps to catch litigants unawares. They should be construed with a view to advance the cause of justice, namely, to enable the court to decide the dispute presented by the parties on merits and not to permit its short-circuiting by procedural entanglements, unless there is no other way out. If 'an application is made under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC and the court finds that it is defective inasmuch as it has not prayed for the impleadment of one or more of the legal representatives, but only of some of the legal representatives of the deceased, it is still an application for substitution under Order 22, Rule 4 CPC. 9. 9. In the present case, the widow was not asked to be impleaded as a party in substitution of the deceased defendant no. 1. The court on being apprised of the fact should have asked the plaintiff to amend the application, which had been filed within time, by incorporating a prayer for impleading the widow as well. The court had the jurisdiction, and in order to advance the cause of justice it was incumbent upon the court to do so. If inspite of such an order the plaintiff refused or neglected he may be faced with the penalty of the dismissal of the application as defective. Else the court can very well be castigated for inadvertently utilizing the procedural provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 to trip up an unwary litigant. That is contrary to the policy of the law behind the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. It is true that the plaintiff should have asked for impleadment of the widow. No ulterior motive has been attributed. The court should have directed the plaintiff to make the application proper by amending it and adding the name of the widow-in it, without doing so, the court committed procedural irregularity which was material, in directing the abatement of the suit. It is not the function of the court to be a dummy in the hands of the parties. It is expected to perform its own functions properly. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Court below for disposal of the substitution application afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. In the circumstances, the parties will bear their own costs in this Court. --- Revision allowed.