JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - The short point that falls for consideration in this revision application is whether power under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'C.P.C.') can be exercised, to implead legal representatives of a deceased party when an application under Order 22, Rule 4, CPC to bring the said legal representatives on record has been dismissed. 2. The factual background in short is, that a suit was instituted for a declaration that the Defendants were encroachers in respect of Schedule 'B' lands, mandatory injunction for removal of certain construction, restoration of possession and' permanent injunction. One of the Defendants (Defendant No. 1) died on 3.4-1982. Plaintiffs filed (I petition under Order 22, Rule 4, stating that Defendant No. 1 Natabar died on 3-4-1982 leaving behind three sons, two daughters and his widow; Defendant No. 4 Murali was one of the sons of deceased Defendant No. 1, who also died on 31-7-1986 unmarried; some of the legal representatives of late Natabar were already on record as Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Prayer was made to substitute the widow and two daughters in place of deceased Natabar and to delete the name of Murali. Application was also filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay. In all, three applications were filed for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and substitution. The prayers contained in the petitions were rejected excepting the one to delete the name of deceased Muralidhar. It was held by order dated 2-12-1988 that the suit abated against Defendant No. 1. Admittedly the said order has not yet been assailed. Subsequently, two petitions were filed before the learned Munsif. One of the petitions was filed by the Defendants to declare that the entire suit had abated on account of the abatement of the suit in respect of Defendant No. 1. The other petition was filed by the Plaintiffs under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC with Section 151, CPC to implead the widow and daughters of deceased Defendant No. 1. The prayer was allowed by the impugned order which is assailed in this revision application. 3. The other petition was filed by the Plaintiffs under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC with Section 151, CPC to implead the widow and daughters of deceased Defendant No. 1. The prayer was allowed by the impugned order which is assailed in this revision application. 3. It is relevant to mention here that the learned Munsif relied on a decision of this Court in Civil Revision No. 665 of 1984 (Pitamber Dash v. Pradipta Kumar Sahoo and Ors.) decided on 23-7-1987, to conclude that the prayer as made by the Plaintiffs was to be allowed for effective adjudication of the dispute. On behalf of the Petitioner, it has been urged that the ratio in Pitambar Dash's case (supra) has been misapplied by the learned Munsif. It was urged that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Swaroop and Others Vs. Mool Chand and Others the learned Munsif fell into great errors in allowing the petition. On behalf of the opposite parties, it has been, however, submitted that though on the face of it, it appears that the decision of this Court in Pitambar Dash's case (supra) supports the contention of the Petitioner, yet on a closer reading of the same and the ratio in Bhagwan Swaroop's case (supra), it is apparent that in deserving cases, in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the resort to Order 1, Rule 10, CPC is permissible, On consideration of the rival submissions, I find that the facts of this case are akin to those involved in 40 (1974) C.L.T. 885 ( Durga Ch. Parida v. Basant Kumar Parida and Ors. ). It was held in that case as follows: ... 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.... 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.... The following conclusion of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Swaroop (supra) has put the matter beyond any shadow of doubt. There is some force in the contention that when a specific provision is made as provided in Order 22, Rule 4 a resort to the general provision like Order 1, Rule 10 may not be appropriate. In the said case even though the Court permitted impletion of parties under Order 1, Rule 10, yet it was amply clarified that it was so done in view of the peculiar circumstances of that case. Hon'ble Justice Mr. A.M. Sen has also highlighted this aspect in his separate concurring judgment. The distinguishing feature of that case was that the suit was for partition and a preliminary decree had been passed. In the case under consideration, the learned Munsif appears to have misread the ratio in Pitambar Dash's case (supra). The matter under consideration in that case was not one under Order 1, Rule 10, but related to an application under Order 6, Rule 17. My learned brother S.C. Mohapatra. J. has categorically held that there can be no doubt that on rejection of an application under Order 22, Rule 3 another application cannot be filed for the same purpose under Order 1. Rule 10. After making this observation, the learned Judge has referred to the decision of this Court in the cases of Durga Ch. Parida (supra). He has also expressed his dissent from the view expressed by the Allahabad and Calcutta High Courts, reported in Khalil Ahmad and Others Vs. Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others, and AIR 1985 Cal 80 State Bank of India v. Himalaya Shipping Co. Ltd.) respectively. The impugned order is indefensible and is accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision is allowed, but there shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed