A. N. DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) THE order passed by the Deputy Collector at Nadiad (the appellate authority for convenience) on 27th January 1981 in Tenancy Appeal No. 535 of 1978 as affirmed in revision by the decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) on 4th September 1984 in Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 821 of 1981 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. By this impugned order the appellate authority accepted the appeal preferred by and on behalf of the respondents herein against the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal at Matar (the first authority for convenience) on 20th July 1978 in Tenancy Case No. 49 of 1977 and quashed and set it aside. By his aforesaid order the first authority accepted the deceased predecessor-in-title of the present petitioners to be the tenant of two parcels of land bearing Survey Nos. 642/3 and 642/5 admeasuring 1 acre 28 gunthas and 1 acre 17 gunthas respectively situated in village Alindram taluka Matar district Kheda (the disputed lands for convenience) and fixed the statutory purchase price thereof at Rs. 2112 to be payable in four equal instalments of Rs. 528 each beginning on and from 30th September 1978 ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The predecessor-in-title of the petitioners herein are the heirs and legal representatives of the original petitioner. He breathed his last during the pendency of this petition in this Court and he has been substituted by his heirs and legal representatives on the record of this case. He claimed to be the tenant of the disputed lands. The respondents herein are the owners thereof. The original petitioner herein moved an application on 10th June 1977 before the first authority for declaration of his status as the tenant of the disputed lands under Sec. 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (the Act for brief) and fixation of the statutory purchase price thereof under Sec. 32 G thereof. It came to be registered as Tenancy Case No. 49 of 1977. It came to be registered as Tenancy Case No. 49 of 1977. After recording evidence and hearing the parties by his order passed on 20th July 1978 in Tenancy Case No 49 of 1977 the first authority declared the original petitioner herein to be the tenant of the disputed lands and fixed the statutory purchase price thereof at Rs. 2112 payable in four equal instalments of Rs. 528 each beginning on and from 30 September 1978. Its copy is at Annexure A to this petition That aggrieved the respondents herein. They carried the matter in appeal before the appellate authority by means of their Tenancy Appeal No 535 of 1978. By his order passed on 27th January 1981 in the aforesaid appeal the appellate authority accepted it and quashed and set aside the order at Annexure A to this petition and dismissed the claim made by the original petitioner herein as the tenant of the disputed lands. A copy of the appellate order is at Annexure B to this petition. That aggrieved the original petitioner herein. He carried the matter in revision before the Tribunal by means of his Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 871 of 1981. By its decision rendered on 4th September 1984 in the aforesaid revisional application the Tribunal rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure C to this petition. The aggrieved original petitioner herein thereupon moved this Court by means of this petition under An. 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure B to this petition as affirmed in revision by the impugned decision at Annexure C to this petition As pointed out hereinabove the original petitioner is no longer alive and he has been substituted by his heirs and legal representatives on the record of this petition. ( 3 ) SHRI Vakil for the petitioners has urged that the appellate authority was in error in not accepting the claim of the original petitioner herein as the tenant of the disputed lands. ( 3 ) SHRI Vakil for the petitioners has urged that the appellate authority was in error in not accepting the claim of the original petitioner herein as the tenant of the disputed lands. Shri Vakil for the petitioners has further urged that in view of the admitted position on record that the heirs of the deceased appellant were not brought on record within three months from the date of his death and since no application for condonation of the delay in bringing the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased appellant on record was made the appellate authority was not justified in not disposing the appeal as having abated on that account. As against this Shri Patel for Respondent No. 1 (1) has urged that the appellate authority has on careful scrutiny of the evidence on record come to the conclusion that the deceased petitioner herein was not the tenant of the disputed lands and that finding of fact has been affirmed in revision by the Tribunal after careful examination of the record. In that view of the matter runs the submission of Shri Patel for Respondent No. 1 (1) this Court need not interfere with that finding of fact concurrently recorded by the appellate authority and the Tribunal in revision in exercise of its limited powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India Shri Patel for Respondent No. 1 (1) has further urged that the procedure for appeal under Sec 74 of the Act is governed by Chapter XIII of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 (the Code for brief) and there is no provision in Chapter XIII fixing any time-limit for bringing the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased party on record. According to Shri Patel for the respondents the appellate authority was therefore quite justified in bringing the heirs and legal -representatives of the deceased appellant on record in view of the application made for the purpose and the Tribunal was also justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellate authority was justified in doing so. According to Shri Patel for the respondents the appellate authority was therefore quite justified in bringing the heirs and legal -representatives of the deceased appellant on record in view of the application made for the purpose and the Tribunal was also justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellate authority was justified in doing so. ( 4 ) IT transpires from the appellate order at Annexure B to this petition and the decision at Annexure C to this petition that the evidence on record has been carefully and closely scrutinised by the appellate authority and the Tribunal for coming to the conclusion that the original petitioner herein was not the tenant of the disputed lands. That finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority and the Tribunal is not shown or found to be perverse. It would not be open to this Court to upset that finding of fact in exercise of its limited jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) BY virtue of Sec. 74 (2) of the Act the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Code are made applicable to appeals under Sec. 74 (1) thereof. Chapter XIII of the Code provides for some procedural matters including the time-limit for filing an appeal thereunder. A provision is also made for condonation of the delay in preferring such appeal in Sec. 206 thereof. A provision is also made in Sec. 207 thereof to extend the period of limitation by one day if the last day of limitation falls on a Sunday or a holiday. Section 209 of the Code prescribes powers of the appellate authority. It reads:the appellate authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing either annul reverse modify or confirm the decision or order of the subordinate officer appealed against or he may direct the subordinate officer to make such further investigation or to take such additional evidence as he may think necessary or he may himself take such additional evidence:provided that it shall not be necessary for the appellate authority to record reasons in writing (A) when an appeal is dismissed summarily or (B) when the decision or order appealed from is itself a decision or order recorded in appeal or (C) when an appeal is made to the State Government under section 204. It becomes clear therefrom that the appellate authority has to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits and in no other manner. There is no provision anywhere in Chapter XIII of the Code prescribing any period of limitation for bringing on record heirs and legal representatives of a deceased party. The question of abatement of a proceeding would arise only if the time limit is prescribed for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased party. In absence of any such provision prescribing for such time-limit no question of its abatement would arise. As pointed out hereinabove Chapter XIII of the Code contains no provision whatsoever prescribing any time limit for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased party. In that view of the matter the question of abatement of an appeal would not arise. Besides no power is conferred on the appellate authority under Sec. 209 of the Code to dispose of any appeal on the ground that it has been abated for want of bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased party. ( 6 ) IT is possible that the death of a party to the appellate proceeding might not be brought to the notice of the appellate authority and the decision in appeal might be against or in favour of a deceased party. Such a decision can perhaps be challenged as a nullity in view of the Division Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Jiviben Lavji Raganath vs. Jadavji Devshanker and Others reported in (1976) 18 G. L. R. 883 by applying the principle analogous to that applicable to a decree passed under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (the C. P. C. for brief ). That however does not mean that an application for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased party has to be made within the time-limit prescribed by the C. P. C. It is difficult to accept the submission of Shri Vakil for the petitioners to the effect that the relevant provisions contained in the C. P. C. regarding abatement of a proceeding including an appeal would be applicable to an appeal under Chapter XIII of the Code by virtue of Sec. 141 of the C. P. C. The reason therefore is quite simple Section 141 applies only to the original proceedings and not to the appellate proceedings. There should be specific provision like the one found in Sec. 107 (2) of the Code for applicability of the relevant provisions of the C. P. C. to appellate proceedings. ( 7 ) IN view of my aforesaid discussion I am of the opinion that the impugned order at Annexure B to this petition as affirmed in revision by the impugned decision at Annexure C to this petition is quite legal and valid and calls for no interference by this Court in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 8 ) IN the result this petition fails. It is hereby rejected. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as to costs. The ad-interim relief stands vacated. At the oral request of Shri Vakil for the petitioners the ad-interim relief is ordered to continue for a period of three months from today to enable the aggrieved petitioners to carry the matter before the higher forum by means of an appropriate proceeding for questioning the correctness of this judgment of mine. Petition Dismissed. .