ORDER This application under S 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of the learned Munsif dated May 16, 1980 rejecting the prayer for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff Kirtibas Sardar. The petitioners have filed an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay in filing the application for revision. The order complained of was made on May 16, 1980 and the application for revision was filed on September 3, 1980. In their application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act the petitioners have stated the reasons for the delay. After bearing the learned Advocates and considering the materials, I am of opinion that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. The delay is thus condoned. 2. The point that arises in this Rule is whether an application for substitution by the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff in a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs right as Bargadars and for permanent injunction and damages should be governed by the provisions of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by the provisions of S. 15A of the West Bengal. In Reforms Act, 1955. The petitioner No. 1 and Kirtibas Sardar predecessor of petitioners 2 to 6, filed Title Suit no. 501 of 1974 before the Munsif. First Court, Baruipur for declaration of right as Bargadar and for permanent injunction and damages. Kirtibas died on August 2, 1979 and the petitioners 2 to 6 filed an application on September 19, 1979 for being substituted in place of the deceased plaintiff. The learned Munsif rejected the said application on the ground that the bargadarship as claimed by the deceased plaintiff was not admitted nor the heir who was to represent him was determined in accordance with S. 15A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The petitioners thereafter obtained the present Rule. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has argued that the learned Munsif was wrong in holding that determination under S. 15A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was necessary before there was substitution. It has been argued that as this was a suit before a Civil Court, the provisions of Order 22 C.P. Code were applicable. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has argued that the learned Munsif was wrong in holding that determination under S. 15A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was necessary before there was substitution. It has been argued that as this was a suit before a Civil Court, the provisions of Order 22 C.P. Code were applicable. The petitioners 2 to 6 as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff filed an application within time and as such they should have been substituted. 4. The learned Advocate for the opposite party has contended that before substitution there was the question of determination as provided by S. 15A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. As there was no such determination, the learned Munsif was justified in rejecting the application. In support of his contention the learned Advocate for the opposite party has referred to the case of Probodh Chandra Samanta v. State of West Bengal & Ors (1981)(1) CLJ 520 : 1981(1) CHN 516). The learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the decision referred to above can be distinguished as in that case the question arose before an authority under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and not before the Civil Court. 5. The petitioner no. 1 and the deceased Kirtibas Sardar flied a suit before a Civil Court for declaration of their right. On the death of Kirtibas Sardar, the heirs and legal representatives applied for being substituted. The application was within the time required under Order 22 C.P. Code. In Probodh Chandra Samanta's case (supra) it has been held that in view of the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Bargadar are entitled to continue with the cultivation and when a Bargadar dies during the cultivation and when such a Bargadar has filed a suit for declaration of his right and during the pendency of the proceeding his legal heirs may be substituted. It has been for her had that the application for substitution or the provisions of Order 22 C.P. Code would not ordinarily apply. It has been for her had that the application for substitution or the provisions of Order 22 C.P. Code would not ordinarily apply. In any event, even if the provisions are applied, for ends of justice and for effective determination of the proceeding, the persons substituted cannot be declared or given the right or status of a Bargadar in such proceedings, as there are specific and adequate provisions for such declaration through or under S 15A of the Land Reforms Act. 6. In the present Rule the question before me is not whether the petitioners would he entitled to the declaration prayed for if the provisions of S. 15A of the Land Reforms Act are not complied with. In a proceeding before an officer or authority under the Land Reforms Act it may be urged that all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable and thus the question of substitution of a deceased Bargadar will be determined in accordance with the provisions of S. 15A of the Land Reforms Act and the relevant Rules made under the Act. These contentions, however, do not apply in the case of a suit pending before a Civil Court. As this is not a proceeding before an officer or authority under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act there is no reason why the provisions of Order 22 of C.P. Code would not be applicable. In my opinion, the provisions of Order 22 C.P. Code would be applicable in the instant suit for purposes of substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The learned Munsif has thus committed jurisdictional error and the petitioners have suffered irreparable injury because of the impugned order. The order of the learned Munsif should be set aside and the application should be allowed. 7. The Rule is, thus, made absolute. The impugned order is set aside and the application for substitution is allowed. The learned Munsif will proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible. Let the records be sent to down immediately. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.