Honble MUKHERJI, CJ. – Plaintiff Nanag Ram died on 24.4.93. One of his heirs and legal representatives filed an application for substitution well within the statutory period of limitation. Unfortunately, the trial court rejected the said application on 10.12.1993 on the ground of non compliance of Rule 34 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986 (in short `the Rules of 1986) inasmuch as the applicant has not prayed for all consequential amendments pursuant upon the substitution being effected in respect of heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. Since the application was not in accordance with the Rules, the trial court rejected it, under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. Thereafter, the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff made an application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC for setting aside the abate- ment on 11.12.93 and that application was ultimately dismissed on 1.3.94 by the trial Court. On appeal, however, the Appellate Court set aside the said order and remanded the matter to the trial Court so that the matter could be decided afresh. The defendant has impugned the said order before me in revision. (2). I think, for the ends of justice, the order that was passed by the Appellate Court was well within its jurisdiction and there was no failure to exercise jurisdiction so vested in the Appellate Court and there was no illegal exercise of jurisdiction either or exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. It was a fit case even for allowing the application straightway and having directed substitution in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was really the ignorance of the lawyer that caused infraction of Rule 34 of the Rules of 1986 and a party should not be made to suffer because of such remissness on the part of the lawyer in not having furnished the consequential amendment. That apart, there has been no failure of justice in the present case and u/s. 115 CPC unless there is a failure of justice or an irreparable loss to the party against whom it was made, I do not think that the High Court would be called upon to exercise such a revisional jurisdiction u/s. 115 CPC. That apart, there has been no failure of justice in the present case and u/s. 115 CPC unless there is a failure of justice or an irreparable loss to the party against whom it was made, I do not think that the High Court would be called upon to exercise such a revisional jurisdiction u/s. 115 CPC. It is always the discretion of the High Court because the High Court `may call for the records of the case and exercise its revisional jurisdiction and unless it is so convinced, High Court may not also exercise the jurisdiction. It is not a case fit for exercise of discretion at all. The revision application stands rejected.