JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member. - This second appeal has been preferred against the order dated 31-10-1983 passed by Sri Gajendra Singh, Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, allowing the appeal No. 28/1052 of 1981-82 preferred against the order dated 22-7-1982 passed by the SDO Bareilly in suit number 14 of 1969/50/80 under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, abating the suit as the necessary heirs of the deceased Anwari Begum and Akbari Begum were not substituted. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Smt. Noor Jehan an 8 others brought a suit for declaration under Section 229-B of the Act. During the Course of the proceedings before the trial Court Smt. Anwari Begum and Smt. Akbari Begum died, the former on 25-2-1977 and the latter on 2-2-1976. Akbari left no heirs. However, Anwari left two heirs. Since no steps for substitution was taken, the learned trial court abated the suit on 27-12-1980. One Shiv Saran who was not a party to the suit, applied for his impleadment. The learned trial court rejected this application on 15-1-1979 on the ground that no suit was pending and that the applicant had himself filed a suit. Shiv Saran filed a revision before the Divisional Commissioner against this order. Summons were sent but were returned with the remark that the two ladies died and no substitution was made. The learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision on the point of impleadment but allowed substitution on the application of the revisionist. An appeal was filed against the order of abatement passed by the trial court. The learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and hence this second appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri Hari Shanker, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the order of the Additional Commissioner is illegal because Shiv Saran was not a party to the suit and his impleadment was rejected. His submission is that a person who is not a party to the suit and whose application for impleadment has been rejected, cannot make an application for substitution. Sri G.N. Verma learned counsel for the respondent has contended that since the order of substitution was allowed by the first appellate court, the order was binding on the trial court. His submission is that a person who is not a party to the suit and whose application for impleadment has been rejected, cannot make an application for substitution. Sri G.N. Verma learned counsel for the respondent has contended that since the order of substitution was allowed by the first appellate court, the order was binding on the trial court. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on AIR 1970 SC 1 , 1979 RD 99 and 1988 SC 2121. His second submission is that even an outsider can apply for substitution to help the suit and in the instant case, Shiv Saran had only made an application but actually the sons of Anwari were substituted. He has further argued that the purpose of substitution is to decide the case on merits and no second appeal lies against an order of substitution. The learned counsel for the appellant took exception of the fact that the rulings cited above were not shown in the court. He has further argued that the substitution was allowed in revision. But no application for substitution was made in the suit. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the record. The only legal question for determination is whether a person who is not a party to the suit and whose application for impleadment has been rejected, can make an application for substitution. The learned Additional Commissioner has taken the view that the suit was not abated as the heirs of the two deceased ladies had already been brought on the record and the trial court had, therefore, no occasion for dismissing the suit as abated. He has further observed that since the substitution was not challenged in revision by the respondents, they were estopped from challenging substitution already made. The view by the learned Additional Commissioner being erroneous is not sustainable. He is wrong in holding that the suit was dismissed and not abated. The abatement is automatic if the deceased is not substituted within time. In the instant case, the plaintiffs Anwari Begum and Akbari Begum died and no steps for substitution were taken by their legal representatives or heirs. They were substituted in revision No. 83 of 1979 by one Shiv Sharan Lal who was not a party to the suit. The abatement is automatic if the deceased is not substituted within time. In the instant case, the plaintiffs Anwari Begum and Akbari Begum died and no steps for substitution were taken by their legal representatives or heirs. They were substituted in revision No. 83 of 1979 by one Shiv Sharan Lal who was not a party to the suit. The order of substitution passed at his instance is illegal and the so called substituted heirs will not be deemed to have been substituted in the suit. The proper remedy open to them was to move the trial court for setting aside abatement and for substitution. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the order of substitution passed by the revisional court was binding on the trial court is not sustainable. The ruling given in Jagdeo v. Chhatradhari, by the Hon'ble Deoki Nandan, J. of the Allahabad High Court reported in 1979 RD 99 , does not apply to the instant case. In this case, Puddan, Sukhdeo, Darshan and Budul had died during the pendency of the first appeal from order, at an earlier stage of the appeal in the lower appellate court and although their and legal representatives were substituted in the first appeal from order, they were not substituted in the appeal before the lower appellant court. It has been held that since the legal representatives of Puddan, Sukhdeo, Darshan and Budul had already been substituted in the first appeal from order, it cannot be said that there was any abatement of the appeal in the lower appellate court by reasons of their death. In the instant case the facts of the case are altogether different. In this case, the substitution order was passed at the instance of a third person who was not a party to the suit and that being the position, the ruling under reference is of no help to the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The ruling given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector of 24 Pargana v. Lalit Mohan Mullick, AIR 1988 SC 2121 , has too no application. The facts of the ruling under reference are that Smt. Shivdasi Mullick w/o Krishna Mohan Mullick had died during the pendency of the appeal in this court. 6. The ruling given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector of 24 Pargana v. Lalit Mohan Mullick, AIR 1988 SC 2121 , has too no application. The facts of the ruling under reference are that Smt. Shivdasi Mullick w/o Krishna Mohan Mullick had died during the pendency of the appeal in this court. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'so far as Shibadasi Mullick widow of Sri Krishna Mohan Mullick is concerned her two sons viz. Lakshmi Kanto Mullick and Nikanto Mullick were already on record as respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Therefore, the estate of the deceased was sufficiently represented before this court. So far as respondent No. 5 Smt. Kamalini Mullick widow of Sri Khirode Mohan Mullick is concerned, her son Ramendra Mullick was already on record as respondent No. 6. In her case also, the estate was sufficiently represented. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to uphold the plea that the appeal had abated and the judgment on merits rendered by this court on February 13, 1986 requires to be set aside on this ground. The facts of this case also substantially differ from the facts of the case under reference. There is nothing in this ruling to show that the legal representatives were brought on the record at the instance of an outsider. I have also gone through the ruling given by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shital Prasad Saxena v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1 . In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the approach of the High Court as revisional court in dealing with a substitution of legal heirs and condonation of delay is wrong. In this case, the steps for substitution was taken by the son of the deceased and not by any outsider. The ruling is, therefore, also not of any help to the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The purpose of law and rules framed thereunder are to maintain legal discipline. Advancement of justice and holding liberal view is possible only within the frame work of law. An order passed in violation of law is not sustainable. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 30-10-1983 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is set aside.