JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been directed against the order dated 24.2.1993, passed by A.M.J.M. Kotputli, whereby application of the petitioners dated 29.10.1992, dismissing the suit on the ground of abatement was rejected. 2. Brief relevant facts of the case are that Shri Banwari Lal predecessor of the Non-Petitioners mortgaged the disputed property on 9.8.1958 to Sua Lal. Later on, said Shri Banwari Lal filed a suit for redemption of mortgage against said Shri Sua Lal and the petitioners. During the pendency of this suit, Shri Banwari Lal died and the non-petitioners were taken on record as his legal representatives. The defendant No. 1 Mortgagee Shri Sua Lal also died but no application was filed by the plaintiff non-petitioners for bringing on record the legal heirs of said Shri Sua Lal. Under these circumstances the petitioners filed an application dated 22.10.1990, and prayed that the suit he dismissed having become abated. 3. The plaintiff non-petitioners filed reply of the said application mentioning therein that Shri Sua Lal remained ex-parte and he did not file any written statement. Under these circumstances, suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of abatement for not bringing on record the legal heirs. The trial court vide its order dated 24.2.1993, rejected the said application. 4. Order 22 Rule 4(4) C.P.C. provides that the Court whenever thinks fit, may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant, who has failed to file a written statement. 5. In the present case, it is not disputed that the deceased defendant No. 1 Sualal remained ex-parte and he did not file any written statement. Under these circumstances, the Court was empowered to exempt the non- petitioners to file an application for substitution though the application of the petitioners was rejected on other grounds. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, it should be presumed that the trial Court has granted exemption to the non-petitioners from filing application for substitution as the deceased defendant remained ex-parte and did not file written statement. 6. Consequently, the order passed by the trial Court, cannot be said to the without jurisdiction. As such the revision is dismissedRevision Dismissed. *******