C. M. Nayar, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision petition is directed against the order dated March 14, 1986, Additional District Judge, Delhi, on an application moved by the respondent no. 1, plaintiff in suit) under Order 22 Rule 4 C. P. C. to bring on record the legal representatives of respondent no. 3, who had since expired sometime in the year 1980. A separate application was also moved under the provisions of Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. , for prayer that the legal representatives of respondent no. 3 may be made parties in their independent capacity, being necessary parties in the suit. The application under Order 22. Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code. was also accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay as the above said application was moved during the pendency of appeal, preferred TO in the Court of Additional District Judge, against the order dated February 4, 1984 wherein the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, dismissed the application of the. respondent no. 1 Shri Kuldip Kumar Goyle, under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to restrain the respondents I to 3 from executing the decree, bearing title Shri Mahesh Chandra and Others v. A. C. Goyle in suit No. 540/70 decided on November 18, 1976, by Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. ( 2 ) THE brief facts, which are relevant for the present controversy, are that a registered sale deed was made In favour of the petitioners, in respect of the premises known as 5, Doctors Lane, New Delhi, on March 4, 1971, and a supplementary lease-deed by Land and Development Office was made in favour of the petitioners on June 3, 1972. The petitioners filed a suit for eviction against Shri A. C. Goyle, the father of respondent no, I, and the same was decreed vide order dated November 18, 1976, by the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, the first appeal of Shri A. C. Goyle was dismissed by 615 the Rent Control Tribun. . il on September 17, 1979, and the said order of eviction was upheld by this Court on October 12, 1979. It is stated that Special Leave Petition against the order of the High Court was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. The present respondent no. . il on September 17, 1979, and the said order of eviction was upheld by this Court on October 12, 1979. It is stated that Special Leave Petition against the order of the High Court was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. The present respondent no. 1 Shri Kuldip Goyle is the son of Shri A. C. Goyle against whom a decree of eviction was passed. He filed objections, under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, before the Additional Rent Controller, before whom the execution was applied of the decree dated November 18, 1976. The evidence was led and the objections were tried. The same were dismissed by the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, vide order dated February 27, 1982, The said Court held that the objectors have failed to prove the case regarding independent title to the suit premises and the Court cannot go behind the decree and the same cannot be held as illegal, null and void. Shri Kuldip Goyle filed an appeal in the Court of Shri V. S. Aggarwal Rent Control Tribunal, assailing the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated February 27, 1982. The Rent Control Tribunal, vide order dated August 2 8, 1963, affirmed the order of the Additional Rent Controller and held that the appellant therein failed to establish that he was a tenant in the property and in occupation of the same, in his own independent right. Meanwhile, the respondents 1 and 2 had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on December 11, 1979. The relevant prayer clause in the said suit may be reproduced as follows : "it is, therefore, prayed that decree for declaration and permanent injunction may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs declaring the plaintiffs as lawful tenants hiving an independent title to the said premises as tenants and declaring the said decree bearing title Shri Mahesh Chandra and Others v. A. C. Goyle suit No. 540/70 decided on 18. 11. 76, execution of which is pending in the Court of Shri P. K. Dham, Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi, as illegal, void and restraining the defendants No. I to 3 permanently, from executing the decree bearing title Shri Mahesh Chandra and Others v. Shri A. G. Goyle suit No. 540/70 decided on 18. 11. 76 pending in the Court of Shri P. K. Dham, Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi, as illegal, void and restraining the defendants No. I to 3 permanently, from executing the decree bearing title Shri Mahesh Chandra and Others v. Shri A. G. Goyle suit No. 540/70 decided on 18. 11. 76 pending in the Court of Shri P. K. Dham, Addl. , Rent Controller, Delhi and the defendants No 4 to 8 from denying the title of the plaintiffs as tenant in the said premises. No relief is claimed against defendant No. 9. It is further prayed that any other relief which this Court may deem fit may also be granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. " ( 3 ) THE above said respondents also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C P. C. for ad interim injunction. The relevant prayer this application is reproduced as follows : "that in view of the above, it is, therefore, prayed that till the decision of the suit, an ad interim injunction may be granted restraining the defendants No. 1 to 3 from executing the decree, bearing title Shri Mahesh Chandra and Others v. Shri A. C. Goyle suit No. 540/70 decided on 18. 11. 1976 pending in the Court of Shri P. K. Dham, Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi. " The said application was disposed of by the Court of Shri RC. Yaduvanshi, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, vide order dated February 4,1984. The matter was hotly contested and it was held by the Trial Judge that the balance of convenience was not in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents, as they are being sought to be evicted by due process of law. Respondent no. 3, Shri Rajinder 616 The Delhi Law Times 1992 Nath Dewan had already expired prior to the date of passing of the order In an application for interim injunction. No steps were taken to implead his legal heirs in the Trial Court as it was stated by the respondents herein that they had no knowledge of his death, although it was mentioned in the order sheet of September 14, 1981, "that defendant No. 4 i. e. Rajinder Nath Dewan reported to have died". No steps were taken to implead his legal heirs in the Trial Court as it was stated by the respondents herein that they had no knowledge of his death, although it was mentioned in the order sheet of September 14, 1981, "that defendant No. 4 i. e. Rajinder Nath Dewan reported to have died". ( 4 ) THE main submissions, which are sought to be raised by learned Counsel for petitioner, may be reproduced as follows : (a) The suit of the plaintiff/respondent was barred by the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act since the question, as to whether, Shri Kuldip Goyle is the tenant in the property in question, is to be decided by the Rent Controller, in terms of Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (b) After the decision on merits by the Rent Controller, on the question, as to whether, Shri Kuldip Goyle is a tenant or not, the finding is final and no suit can be filed in the civil Court and the same would be resjudicata within the provisions of Sec- tion II Civil Procedure Code. (e) The injunction application can be decided In the absence of a co-owner or a legal representative of a co-owner, since the plaintiff/respondent has to stand on its own legs and ha to prove a prima fade case in his favour, especially when the injunction was sought only against the petitioner. (d) The application for bringing the legal representatives on record ought to be filed before the Trial Court, who was hearing the original suit. In the absence of such application the suit is abated qua respondent no. 3 and no appeal would lie in which respon- dent no. 3 can be made as a party. (e) The appeal itself is an independent proceedings and if, one of the respondents dies, the same procedure of bringing the legal respresentatives on the record has to be followed for the pur- poses of the disposal of the appeal and the present application under Order 22 Civil Procedure Code. was moved for the purposes of bringing the legal representatives on the record for the purpose of dispo- sal of the appeal. (f) The First Appellate Court ought not to have remanded the case back and ought to have heard the case on merits presuming that the application under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code. was moved for the purposes of bringing the legal representatives on the record for the purpose of dispo- sal of the appeal. (f) The First Appellate Court ought not to have remanded the case back and ought to have heard the case on merits presuming that the application under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code. could have been allowed. (g) The application under Order 22 Civil Procedure Code. was hopelessly barred by time. Even otherwise, the factum of death was recorded in the impugned order of the trial Court. (h) An application under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. cannot be filed to circumvent the provisions of Order 22 Civil Procedure Code. (i) The appeal was filed against a dead person, i. e. respondent no. 3 and the same was liable to be rejected on the short ground alone. ( 5 ) THE cotentions, which are more relevant for the present controversy are that it was not necessary to add parties at the appellate stage and, in any 617 case, the Appellate Court ought to have impleaded the legal representatives of deceased respondent no, 3 and proceeded to hear the appeal, arising out of the order of the Trial Judge, in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C P. C. The application was hopelessly barred by time and no jurisdiction was vested in the lower appellate Court to condone the delay and the suit could have proceeded without addition of the parties. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents, has vehemently argued that the High Court, vide order dated November 8, 1985, had specifically asked the Lower Appellate Court to decide the application under Order 22 Rule 4 C P. C. on merits and no choice was left with the Court but to decide the application and the same has been rightly decided. The proceedings are still at the notice stage and no injustice will be caused to the petitioners, if the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 3 are impleaded as parties. He has further stressed that the substitution is valid, even in an appellate stage and will relate to all subsequent proceedings In the suit. The proceedings are still at the notice stage and no injustice will be caused to the petitioners, if the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 3 are impleaded as parties. He has further stressed that the substitution is valid, even in an appellate stage and will relate to all subsequent proceedings In the suit. The Appellate Court has powers even to set aside the decree, if necessary parties are not impleaded and liberal interpretation has to be given to the provisions of law to do complete justice between the parties. Lastly, he has contended that the lower Appellate Court has passed a reasoned order, which does not suffer from any infirmity nor the Court has acted in exercise of jurisdiction, not vested in it by law or has acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. ( 7 ) IT will not be necessary to go into the detailed examination of the facts and the law, as submitted in this case. The short question, which arises for consideration is, whether, the Lower Appellate Court exercised the jurisdiction properly in granting the application, under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code. The Authorities have been cited to say that a belated application cannot be entertained and the same is liable to be dismissed on that short ground and the delay cannot be condoned, as a matter of course. The appeal filed against a dead person is a nullity and the application, as well as, the appeal ought to have been dismissed on that ground. The other view, which has been canvassed is that the Appellate Court was asked to consider the application by order of Sultan Singh,j. of this Court dated November 8, 1985, wherein the learned Judge reversed the order of the lower appellate Court, dismissing the said application on the ground that the name of the said respondent had been deleted vide order dated September 17, 1984. It has also been contended that the Court, under its inherent powers, can set aside the abatement and add the legal representatives as parties under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. and in the absence of the application under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code. It has also been contended that the Court, under its inherent powers, can set aside the abatement and add the legal representatives as parties under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. and in the absence of the application under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code. , the Court should not, as a rule, dismiss the suit for non-joinder of a necessary party but should add him as a party on its own motion or to direct the plaintiff/respondent to apply for that purpose. ( 8 ) THE law is fairly well settled that the High Court possesses very limited powers for exercising revisional jurisdiction, under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code. The lower appellate Court considered the material on record and allowed the application under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code. , as well as, application under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. He has further held that since the plaintiff/respondent has challenged the very right of respondent no. 3 to sell the suit property, which he is occupying as a tenant, his legal representatives are the necessary parties. I do not propose to express any opinion as the matter is left open and no conclusive finding is necessary to decide the present petition. The parties are 518 engaged in litigation and any expression of opinion may be construed on the merits of controversy. ( 9 ) THE only question, which arises for me to consider is, whether. the exercise of discretion has been done properly and whether, the Appellate Court was right in remanding the case back to the Trial Court with a direction that the legal representatives of respondent no. 3 be brought on the record and the interim application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. be decided afresh, in accordance with the provisions of law. ( 10 ) THE Lower Appellate Court has satisfied itself of the reasons of not moving the application before the Trial Judge for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 3 and has exercised the discretion which is vested in it under law. This course is not illegal and the Courts have often condoned the delay, in cases which deserve to be condoned. The abatement on this score has often been set aside provided sufficient cause is made. 3 and has exercised the discretion which is vested in it under law. This course is not illegal and the Courts have often condoned the delay, in cases which deserve to be condoned. The abatement on this score has often been set aside provided sufficient cause is made. Reference may be made to Gagadhar and another v. Raj Kumar, (1984)1 Supreme Court Cases 121. The respondents have taken the plea that they had no knowledge and were ignorant of the death of respondent no. 3 and, as such, the application for bringing on record the legal representatives, was not moved in the Trial Court nor the same was moved within time. It is well settled that the ignorance of the death of a party is a very good ground for not moving the Court to bring his legal representatives on record, for a person cannot think of making an application in this behalf unless be knows that the party is dead. The Lower Appellate Court has concluded that sufficient cause for not making the application in time has been made and I do not propose to interfere with that finding, in exercise of my revisional powers. The other point is also well settled that the legal representatives can be brought on record, after the expiry of the period of limitation, and even at the stage of the appeal. The Division Bench of Punjab High Court in Birbal and Others v. Harlal Sadasukh and Others, AIR 1953 Punjab 252, has upheld this proposition while dealing with the case, where the Appellate Court continued the proceedings before itself and did not remand the case on the ground that the legal representatives of the deceased were not prejudiced in any way. II. Respondents I and 2 moved and an interim application in a suit, under Order 39 Rules I and 2 Civil Procedure Code. claiming reliefs only against the petitioners and no relief, as a consequence, was sought against the respondent no. 3 or his legal representatives. The relevant prayer in the suit, as well as in the interim application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. has already been reproduced above in the preceding paragraphs. It was, therefore, not necessary for the Lower Appellate Court to remand said application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 Civil Procedure Code. The relevant prayer in the suit, as well as in the interim application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. has already been reproduced above in the preceding paragraphs. It was, therefore, not necessary for the Lower Appellate Court to remand said application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 Civil Procedure Code. to be decided afresh in accordance with the provisions of law. The Trial Judge gave a detailed order and it would have been appropriate if, the Lower Appellate Court had disposed of the said application in appeal, as obviously no relief was claimed against the proposed legal representatives nor their Interest would have been prejudiced, if the Lower Appellate Court had proceeded to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. 12. The proceedings In the trial Court are at notice stage and no Injustice will be caused to the petitioners, if the relevant application under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code. is allowed. Accordingly, I uphold the order of the Additional District Judge dated March 14, 1986. He was right in allowing the said application for bringing legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 3 on record. As the legal representatives are brought on record 619 at the stage of the appeal, they must be deemed to have been brought on record at the stage of the suit also. However, the Additional District Judge fell in error in remanding the case to the Trial Court with the directions that the legal representatives of respondent no. 3/defendant no, 4 be brought on record and to decide the interim application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 Civil Procedure Code. afresh, in accordance with law. He need not have remitted the case to the Trial Court as it was open to him to decide the appeal. The legal representatives of the deceased would not be prejudiced in any manner with this course. The petition is allowed to this extent and the learned Additional District Judge may proceed to decide the appeal in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Parties are directed to appear before the learned A. D. J. on 2nd March, 1992.