JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, J.M. - The facts are: On 15.7.83 Hon'ble Member R.S. Verma, since retired, dismissed Second Appeal No. 31/76-77 as abated for non-substitution of heirs of deceased Mahabir. 2. On 19.10.83 Gauri Shanker the son of deceased Mahabir appellant moves a review petition. The contention is that Mahabir had died on 13.4.80 and not on 10.3.1980, erroneously made a basis in Board's order, for he had withdrawn his salary on 17.3.80 as an employee in a Government Junior High School. A patent error lurks in the order of Board of Revenue. 3. We have heard for and against review. 4. It is apt to take up first the question of limitation. The order of Board of Revenue is dated 15.7.83. The review is filed on 19.10.83. The review is filed after 94 days of the second appeal is lodged by Krishna Prasad D/4. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Tenure-holder was Sahu Ram Chander Mai. He transfers ?th share to Sunil Kumar; th share to Budh Sen D/2; ?th share to Krishna Prasad D/4. The purchasers are joint tenants. Their individual shares comprise one unit. These facts are beyond controversy. 7. Even before lodging a suit for partition, co-tenant Sunil Kumar adopts a stratagem to forestall preferential right to purchase of Krishna Prasad D/4. How? This is revealing. He pretends to enter into a family arrangement as to his share with his wife Smt. Alka Agarwal. On 7.9.82 she files a civil suit No. 189/1982 and Sunil Kumar is defendant. Their three years old minor son Master Ashu Agarwal is defendant. Sunil's ?th share is shown in Schedule 'C'. This done, a compromise is filed on 13.9.82 of land in Schedule 'C' ? share of joint tenure. Without division of holding, is transferred to Ashu Agarwal. By this subterfuge co-tenant Sunil Kumar manages to transfer his undivided share to his minor son Master Ashu Agarwal. It is now pleaded on behalf of Master Ashu Agarwal that his is preferential right to purchase sticks as no land is in his name in circle. Sunil Kumar exempts himself from the tiresome burden of showing that he has no other land in the circle of Gaon Sabha. I will not allow him to get away with such an easy cutting of the knot. The reasons are varied and various. Sunil Kumar exempts himself from the tiresome burden of showing that he has no other land in the circle of Gaon Sabha. I will not allow him to get away with such an easy cutting of the knot. The reasons are varied and various. Civil court has no jurisdiction to decide title in a law suit relating to revenue paying land. The alleged R.S. Verma has overlooked a legal position binding upon him. More of it in paragraph it seq infra. Under order 47, Rule 8 C.P.C. review is granted and order dated 15.7.83 is set aside. A note of this be made in the register. 8. We shall show that established legal position as respects abatement of appeal on death has been ignored. Appellant Mahabir has expired on 10.3.80 according to respondent. Counsel for appellant contends that he has died on 13.4.80 as he has personally drawn his salary on 17.3.80. We do not propose to enter into this controversy and shall take the case set forth by respondent that Mahabir has expired on 10.3.80. From this starting point second appeal abates on expiry of 90 days. It does on 10.6.80. The enabling period for a motion of setting aside is 60 days from thence i.e. till 10.8.80. Substitution is moved on 26.6.80. It is inside prescribed time. But the date of death then set forth was 12.5.80. So no question then had arisen to furnish 'sufficient cause' for delay even for enabling period. In any event, when substitution application is moved within the enabling period of 60 days, the abatement should ordinarily be set aside. In A.I.R. 1985 SC 1 death of father occurs on 25.2.76. Son moves on 7.10.78. This is allowed. In A.I.R. 1985 (II) 171 SC respondent has died on 21.11.76. Substitution allowed after six years without supportable grounds. We are persuaded that it is a case, fit enough, where indulgence within permissible limits should be shown. A liberal construction and outlook is apt in view of A.I.R. SC 719. 9. Counsel for respondent contends that an application for setting aside abatement is necessary as postulated under Order 22, Rule 9, C.P.C. We are sure that an application for substitution shall be deemed to be an application for setting aside abatement also, as a date of death is stated in the application. 9. Counsel for respondent contends that an application for setting aside abatement is necessary as postulated under Order 22, Rule 9, C.P.C. We are sure that an application for substitution shall be deemed to be an application for setting aside abatement also, as a date of death is stated in the application. The position has been made clear in 1982 AWC 675 H.C. 1971 RD 76 and 1981 RJ 25 elucidates that substitution application moved after abatement but within next 60 days shall be treated as an application for setting aside abatement. In this view of things, the order dated 15.7.83 dismissing appeal as having abated is set aside. Second appeal be docketed for expeditious hearing on merits before Hon'ble Member having jurisdiction.