JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. This miscellaneous appeal arises out of an order dated the 23rd February, 1977, passed by Shri K.S. Saran, 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Dumka at Pakur, in Title Suit No. 9 of 1965. The aforementioned order was passed in a peculiar circumstance. 2. Ram Lathan Bhagat, father of the original plaintiffs appellants, filed a suit as against the defendants-respondents for realisation of a sum of Rs. 12073.75 on account of a mortgage bond. The sole plaintiff admittedly died on the 9th February, 1975. At the material time, a civil revision application was pending in this court being Civil Revision No. 502 of 1969. The said civil revision arose out of an order granting leave to the plaintiff to amend the plaint b, the Subordinate Judge by an order dated the 6th May, 1969. While the revision application was pending, the defendants who were the petitioner should have taken steps for substitution of the names his heirs and legal representatives. The said revision application was later on withdrawn on the 22nd January, 1974. After the withdrawal of the aforementioned civil revision application, the petitioners being the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff filed an application on the 3rd May, 1974, under Order 22, Rules 3 and 9 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for substituting their names in place of the deceased plaintiff after setting aside abatement. The petitioners also filed a separate application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. 3. The said petition was resisted by the respondents. The learned court below in the impugned order categorically held as follows :- "............Be that as it may, none of the parties took any steps before the Hon'ble High Court substitution of the petitioners in the said Civil Revision after the death of the sole plaintiff which occurred on 9.2.73. Further the said Civil Revision was preferred against an interlocutory order, but the suit was pending before the lower court. Even after the disposal of the said revision vide order dated 22.1.74 the petitioner did not care to take steps to get them substituted till 3.5.74. The grounds shown in the petition referred to above to condone the delay are unreasonable and in convincing........." The learned court below, however, has failed to take into consideration the effect of non-substitution of the heirs at the stage of the civil revision application. The grounds shown in the petition referred to above to condone the delay are unreasonable and in convincing........." The learned court below, however, has failed to take into consideration the effect of non-substitution of the heirs at the stage of the civil revision application. 4. It is now well known that the civil revisional jurisdiction is really an appellate jurisdiction and if the civil revision application itself abated by reason of non-substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff as the defendants respondents were petitioners in the civil revision application and as such it was their duty to get the heirs and legal representatives of the sole deceased plaintiff substituted in the said civil revision application. The case having not been done, the learned court below ought to have exercised the power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to remove the lacuna in proceeding with the suit itself. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Arjun Ram Keshri vs. Sheo Charan Ram and others (1986 HLT (Rep) 48) : 1987 PLJR (NOC) 78. In that case, it was held that the proper procedure for Court below was to report that fact to the revisional court for appropriate orders. In the view of the matter the learned court below having failed to take appropriate steps for reporting the matter to the revisional court in my view the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, in the circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to cost.