In this civil revision the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.7.90 passed by the District Judge, Guwahati, in Probate Miscellaneous Case No. 308 of 1989. 2. The petitioner's case is that his maternal uncle (Mother's brother) Romoni Mohan Paul executed a Will. Romoni Mohan Paul died on 5.5.88. On 28.8.89 the petitioner applied for grant of probate in respect of the said Will, in the Court of the District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati. Both special and general citations were published in accordance with the provisions of law. The respondent on 26.9.89 filed an application in the Court of the District Judge, requesting to implead him as a party respondent in the said probate proceeding. His claim was that he was one of the heirs of deceased late Romoni Mohan Paul. He was also one of the owners of the said properties, as he was the adopted son of late Romoni Mohan Paul. He further stated that he was a necessary party in the case and he ought to have been impleaded as heirs under the provisions of law. 3. The District Judge invited objection against the prayer of the respon­dent and the petitioner filed objection challenging his right to be impleaded. Date was fixed for hearing of the objection. However, on the date fixed i.e on 17.3.93, the respondent did not appear in Court nor he took any steps. The Court, therefore, dismissed the impleadment application filed by the respondent. On 23.4.90 the respondent filed an application stating that he was ill at the time of filing the petition. He also stated that he took a wrong date, therefore, he failed to attend the Court on the date fixed. He prayed for setting aside the exparte order dated 17.3.90 passed by the District Judge. Against this petition, the petitioner filed objection. In the objection the petitioner stated, inter alia, that the petition was not maintainable, being lime barred. He also denied that the petitioner was ill. The petitioner also stated that the respondent intentionally and willingly allowed the exparte order to be passed against him in order to harass the petitioner and put him in trouble. Therefore, the petition for setting aside the order dismissing the petition should be dismissed. 4. He also denied that the petitioner was ill. The petitioner also stated that the respondent intentionally and willingly allowed the exparte order to be passed against him in order to harass the petitioner and put him in trouble. Therefore, the petition for setting aside the order dismissing the petition should be dismissed. 4. The District Judge after hearing the parties by his order dated 9.7.90 allowed the petition holding that:- “this is a fit case in which for the ends of justice, the non-applicant must be heard on his prayer for impleading him as a party". Against this order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition for setting aside the impugned order. 5. I have heard both sides. Mr. N. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to restore the petition for impleadment by setting aside the order dated 17.3.90. The learned counsel has further submitted that this is a case where the petitioner has filed a petition for impleadment by invoking the jurisdiction as per provision of section 384 of the Indian Succession Act as such, the Code of Civil Procedure would apply. Therefore, the petition filed by the respondent was a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the said petition is dismissed as per the procedure, it can be revived only on filing a proper petition. In the present case, a petition is filed after expiry of the period of limitation, i.e. after one month, therefore, without filing the petition for condonation of delay, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application to set aside the order of dismissal of the impleadment petition. 6. In this connection, Mr. Chakraborty has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Nira Kanta Chutia vs. Smti Bedoi Chutiani, AIR 1977 Gauhati 70. Relying on the said decision Mr. Chakraborty has, submitted that as per the decision of this Court, the provision of Code of Civil Procedure should be followed and, therefore, the application filed for restoration of impleadment application was not maintainable. 7. Mr. RP Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that this application was wrongly dismissed, inasmuch as, there was no reason for the District Judge, to fix a date for hearing. Besides, Mr. 7. Mr. RP Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that this application was wrongly dismissed, inasmuch as, there was no reason for the District Judge, to fix a date for hearing. Besides, Mr. Sarmah has stated that the impugned order was passed in exercise of power conferred by law and, therefore, interference by this Court invoking the revisional" power is not contemplated. 8. Mr. Sarmah, has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in AR Antulay vs. RS Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 . He has submitted that no man should suffer because of the mistake of the Court and the Court should not insist on technical procedures and irregularities and for ends of justice Court can revive its own order. Mr. Sarmah has further submitted that the District Judge ought not to have invited objection against the impleadment petition as the petitioner appeared in the Court in pursuance of the general citation. The District Judge ought to have allowed the respondent to appear in the Court without inviting any objection from the petitioner. Accor­ding to Mr. Sarmah, this is a mistake of the Court and for that respondent should not suffer. 9. On the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is to be seen whether this Court should interfere with the impugned order. The District Judge in his judgment dated 9.7.90 observed thus:- "Although the non applicant has defaulted on one day, the matter has not been disposed ex-parte till now. The petitioner has stated the reasons for his default. In the facts and circumstances, I find that this is a fit case in which, for the ends of justice, the non-applicant must be heard on his prayer for impleading him as a party " In coming to that finding the District Judge discussed all the submissions made by the parties. I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding. Besides, the respondents appeared in Court and filed a petition in pursuance of the general citation issued in this regard. He claimed his right under the Will and not outside the Will. He has, therefore, definitely interest in the probate proceeding. He is entitled to take part in the said proceeding. He having appeared in pursuance of the general notice, there is no question of filing a petition for impleading him as parry-respondent. He claimed his right under the Will and not outside the Will. He has, therefore, definitely interest in the probate proceeding. He is entitled to take part in the said proceeding. He having appeared in pursuance of the general notice, there is no question of filing a petition for impleading him as parry-respondent. There was no necessity for the Court to invite objection to the petition and fix a date for hearing. These were all unnecessary exercises. The respondents have a right to appear and contest the proceeding as he claimed under the Will and not outside the Will. 10. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the revision petition. Hence I dismiss the petition. No costs.