JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been directed against the order dated 19.1.1990, passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer, in Civil Appeal No. 162/1979(71 /1983), dismissing the application of the petitioners-dated 12.12.1979, under Order 22 Rule 4, read with Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. 2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the deceased Suraj Karan, who is now represented by Non-Petitioners No. 1 to 4, filed a suit for recovery of money against the petitioners. The suit was decreed by learned Civil Judge, Ajmer, vide his judgment and decree dated 13.8.79, for 5578. 16P. Against this decree of the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer, the petitioners filed a regular Civil First Appeal On 10.10.79. The summons of the appeal in the name of Suraj Karan issued for 22.11.1979, returned back with the endorsement that he died on 14.9.1979. When the summons returned back with the aforesaid. endorsement, the petitioners came to know about the death of sole plaintiff respondent. After making inquiries regarding legal heirs of deceased, the petitioners submitted an application on 12.12.1979, under Order 22 Rule 4, Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and prayed that the legal heirs of the deceased Surajkaran be brought on record. The non-petitioners raised an objection that the application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. was not maintainable. The lower appellate court upheld the objection of the non-petitioners and rejected the application submitted by the petitioners for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased vide his order dated 19.1.1990. This order has been challenged by the defendant petitioners in this revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been argued by Mr. Munshi, counsel for the defendant petitioners that though Order 22 Rule 4 is not applicable in the present case, but the Court has power under Section 153 C.P.C. to amend any defect or error in any proceedings in the suit. He argued that the Court was quite competent to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased by amending the title of the appeal. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of Madras High Court, reported in Gopalakrishnayya and another v. Adivi Lakshmana Rao, AIR 1925 Madras 1210 . He argued that the Court was quite competent to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased by amending the title of the appeal. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of Madras High Court, reported in Gopalakrishnayya and another v. Adivi Lakshmana Rao, AIR 1925 Madras 1210 . He further argued that the Court has ample power under Section 151 C.P.C. to do justice between the parties and to pass such orders which are necessary in the interest of justice. He argued that the petitioners were never negligent and they should not be punished on the technical ground without their being any fault on their part. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajendra Prasad argued that the petitioners submitted application for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased-respondent under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Order 1, Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code, which is not maintainable at all. He argued that the appeal was filed against a dead person, as such it was nullity. When the appeal is nullity, it cannot be amended either under - Section 153 or under any provisions of law and deserves to be dismissed. In support of his arguments he placed reliance on a judgment of Bombay High Court, reported in Bai Pani Vankar v. Madhabhai Galabhai Patel, AIR 1953 Bombay 356 . 5. He next argued that at the best the appeal should be treated validly presented when the petitioners filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. on 12.12.79. The suit was decreed on 13.8.1979 and as the application was filed on 12.12.1979, as such the appeal is barred by limitation. He argued that no application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act (for short the 'Act') was filed by the petitioners for condoning the delay. He next argued that when an appeal is barred by limitation, then Order 41, Rule 3-A provides that the appellant should, alongwith the appeal, submit an application under-Section 5 of the Act for condoning delay. But in the present case, no such application has been filed even at the time when the petitioners filed an application for substitution or till today. Under these circumstances, the counsel for the non-petitioners argued that the appeal is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. But in the present case, no such application has been filed even at the time when the petitioners filed an application for substitution or till today. Under these circumstances, the counsel for the non-petitioners argued that the appeal is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. The counsel for he non-petitioners further argued that the petitioners were negligent and as such 2. AIR 1953 Bombay 356 they should suffer themselves. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in Lala v. Lal Khan and others, 1989(1) RLR 338 . 6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the suit of the non-petitioners was decreed on 13.8.1979. The appeal was filed within time on 10.10.79. Between this period, the plaintiff died on 14.9.1979. The petitioners came to know of this fact only when the summons of the deceased returned on 22.11.1979, with the endorsement that the respondent died on 14.9.79. Immediately the petitioners moved an application on 12.12.1979, for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased respondent. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners were ever negligent. In view of this the ruling of this Court reported in 1989 (1) It.L.R.*338 (Supra) is not applicable. In the aforesaid case, the appeal was rejected on the ground that the appellant was found to be negligent. The ruling cited by the counsel for the non-petitioners and reported in A.I.R. 1953, Bombay, 356 (Supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, after the death of the plaintiff, an appeal was filed on his behalf by his counsel. Under these circumstances, the Bombay High Court held that the counsel had no authority to file appeal on behalf of the deceased plaintiff as his power came to an end when the plaintiff died. In view of this, the Bombay High Court held that the appeal was nullity. But in the present case, the facts are different. The plaintiff died after the suit was decreed and before the appeal was filed. At the time of filing appeal, the petitioners were not aware of this fact that the plaintiff had died. In view of this, the Bombay High Court held that the appeal was nullity. But in the present case, the facts are different. The plaintiff died after the suit was decreed and before the appeal was filed. At the time of filing appeal, the petitioners were not aware of this fact that the plaintiff had died. In good faith they filed appeal against the deceased plain- tiff and on receipt of the summons, they were made aware about the death of the plaintiff respondent and soon thereafter, without any delay after making inquiry, they moved an application for bringing on record the legal heirs of the plaintiff. The provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C are not applicable to the present case as the plaintiff died prior to the filing of the appeal and not during the pendency of the appeal. 7. In A.I.R. 1925 Madras 1210 (supra), the Madras High Court held as under:- If an appeal is presented against a person who was dead at the date of presentation, the Court may under Section 153 permit the cause title to be amended or may return the appeal memorandum for amendment and representation. Although the appeal may be incompetent owing to the wrong person being named as respondent, the Court which deals with it, is acting in a proceeding in a suit and as such has full power under Section 153 to direct an amendment of the appeal memorandum. 8. In the cases reported in Ramjeewan v. Chand Muhammed, AIR 1976 Rajasthan 65 , and State of Himachal Pradesh etc. v. Dhuru Ram etc., AIR 1981 HP 34 , it has been held that the Court has power under Section 153 to allow the appellant to amend the appeal by impleading the legal heirs of the deceased respondent. Though, in these cases, it has been held that the appeal shall be deemed to be presented when the application seeking permission to amend the cause title of the appeal was filed. 9. In jai jai Rahn Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267 , it has been held as under : "A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. 9. In jai jai Rahn Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267 , it has been held as under : "A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs." 10. It was further held that power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations. It was also held that since the name in which the suit was instituted was merely a misdescription of the original plaintiff, no question of limitation arises, the plaint must be deemed on amendment to have been instituted in the name of the real plaintiff, on the date on which it was originally instituted. 11. In Manohar lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, A.I.R. 1962 SC 527 , it has been held as under: "Section 151 itself says that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. In the face of such a clear statement, it is not possible to hold that the provisions of the Code control the inherent power by limiting it or otherwise affecting it. The inherent power has not been conferred upon the Court; it is a power inherent in the Court by virtue of its duty to do justice between the parties before it." 12. In Mohan Lal v. Rameshwar Dass and another, A.I.R. 1962 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 380 , the facts were that Gopi Ram and Rameshwar Dass filed a suit for possession of the land, which was decreed by the trial court on March 21, 1980. The defendant filed appeal on April 22, 1980, after excluding the time spent in obtaining the copies. The appeal was within limitation. Notice of the appeal was issued to the plaintiffs for May 25, 1980. On 25.5.1980, it was reported that Gopi Ram plaintiff was dead. The defendant filed appeal on April 22, 1980, after excluding the time spent in obtaining the copies. The appeal was within limitation. Notice of the appeal was issued to the plaintiffs for May 25, 1980. On 25.5.1980, it was reported that Gopi Ram plaintiff was dead. After making enquiries about the death of Gopi Ram, the defendant submitted an application on 12.6.1980, for bringing on record the legal representatives of Gopi Ram, who had died on 4.4.1980. The application was rejected on the ground that the appeal was nullity as the same was filed against a dead person. The defendant filed second appeal. The Punjab High Court, placing reliance on AIR 1976 Rajasthan 65, Ramjeewan v. Chand Mohammad, Doddamallappa Chan-nabasappa Kari v. Gangappa Shiddeppa Gulganji and AIR 1981 H.P. 34 , State of Himachal Pradesh v. Dhuru Ram and other judgments, held that the death of one of the respondents after the decision of the Court below and before the filing of the appeal, does not render the appeal a nullity and the legal representatives of deceased respondent can be brought on record under Section 153 Civil Procedure Code. 13. In the present case, the plaintiff died on 14.9.1979, after the decree of the trial court. The appeal was presented well within time on 10.10.1979. The petitioners came to know about the death of the plaintiff on 22.11.1979, and after making enquiries, application was submitted on 12.12.1979, for bringing on record the legal heirs of the plaintiff respondent. This application was submitted within 90 days from the death of the plaintiff who died on 14.9.1979. Had the appeal been filled before 14.9.19/9, the day when the plaintiff died, this very application would have been within time and the question of abatement would not have arisen. Therefore, under the particular facts and circumstances of the case, a liberal view of the matter will have to be taken. The lower court has rejected the application of the petitioners simply on the ground that the appeal against a dead person is nullity and as such his legal representatives cannot be brought on record either under Section 153 C.P.C. or under Order 22 Rule 4 or under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. In my opinion, the view taken by the lower court is perverse. The legal representatives can be brought on record under Section 153 Civil Procedure Code, as held by the Madras High Court in Gopalakrishnayya's case (supra). The amendment if allowed relates back to the date of the filing of appeal and as such there is no question of limitation in the present case. The lower court has taken a perverse view of the matter and in case the order is allowed to stand, it would cause serious injury to the petitioners. 14. Consequently, I allow the revision, set-aside the order dated 19.19.1990, passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer and allow the application submitted by the petitioners for bringing on record the legal heirs of the plaintiff i.e. the non-petitioners and remand the case to the said Court with a direction to decide the appeal on merits.Revision allowed. *******