JUDGMENT B.L. Loomba, J. - I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The admitted factual position is like this. Respondent Ram Nath Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction and, in the alternative, for possession against present petitioner Laxmi Narain and others. Vidya Sagar Prasad was defendant no. 11. He died and according to the petitioner his death had taken place about five years prior to 20121983 when the application under order 22 Rule 4 (4) read with section 151 CPC was moved. Plaintiff's application under this provisions is annexure1 wherein it was stated that deceased defendant Vidya Sagar Prasad had not contested the suit according to the written statement filed by him and had actually admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Objection was filed by the petitioner defendant to this application wherein it was stated that the plaintiff had knowledge of the date of the death of Vidya Sagar Prasad and failed to move substitution application within permissible time. It was also mentioned that Vidya Sagar Prasad had not executed any valid sale deed in favour of plaintiff. 2. Learned Munsif upon consideration of the matter and in particular, on perusal of the written statement of deceased defendant Vidya Sagar Prasad, stated that this deceaseddefendant had admitted the claim of the plaintiff in the written statement and after filing the written statement, did not appear to contest the suit. Accordingly, provisions of order 22 Rule 4 (4) came to be attracted and on that basis application was allowed and it was held that it was unnecessary to bring on record the heirs of deceased Vidya Sagar Prasad. The defendantpetitioner filed revision against this order of the learned Munsif and the same was dismissed by order dated 2511985. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned order on the ground that the provisions of order 22 Rule 4 (4) of CPC are inapplicable to the matter in hand and that the sale deed executed by deceased defendant no. 11 in favour of the plaintiff was bad and could not confer any title on him. It is also stated that assuming that the deceased defendant no. 11 had acted in collusion with the plaintiff, this would not entitle the plaintiff to seek exemption from the substitution of the heirs of the deceased. 4. 11 in favour of the plaintiff was bad and could not confer any title on him. It is also stated that assuming that the deceased defendant no. 11 had acted in collusion with the plaintiff, this would not entitle the plaintiff to seek exemption from the substitution of the heirs of the deceased. 4. The factual position as stated in the impugned order could not be assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In fact nothing his been stated to challenge the correctness of the factual position underlying the order under challenge in the writ. This remains (sic)that defendant no. 11 Vidya Sagar Prasad had admitted the claim of the plaintiff in the written statement and subsequently did not come forward to contest the suit. The object underlying the provisions of sub rule (4) of Rule 4 of order 22 CPC is obviously to meet such situation where the defendant has not come forward to file written statement or if filed, has not contested the claim of the plaintiff, obviously, to substitute the heirs is of no practical use because the heirs of the deceased are bound by what has been stated or failure to have been stated by the deceased defendant. Accordingly, it will not be correct to say that sub rule (4) of Rule 4 of Order 22 is inapplicable to the facts of this case. It will be for the defendantpetitioner to canvass before the court that the sale deed executed by the deceased defendant was bad in law and confers no right on the plaintiffrespondent. 5. The writ petition lacking merits is dismissed in limine. 6. Since the matter is very old it is expected that the trial court will expedite the disposal of the case before him. (Petition dismissed.)