Honble YADAV, J. – Instant revision has been filed against the order dated 16.2.96 passed by learned trial court in original civil suit No. 2/95 refusing to review earlier order dated 5.5.95 by virtue of which the predecessor in office of the learned trial court had allowed the application of heirs and legal representatives of deceased Darjan Singh to be brought on record. (2). In pursuance of the aforesaid order the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Darjan Singh viz. Shambhu Singh, Sajjan Singh, Hari Singh and Rai Singh had filed an amended plaint which too was entertained by the predecessor in office of the learned trial court. (3). On the amended plaint fresh summons were issued to the defen- dant-revisionists viz. Smt. Dev Kanwar, Smt. Sajjan Kanwar and Smt. Gein Kanwar. After service of summons the defendant revisionists filed an objection on 9.10.95 stating therein that after death of sole plaintiff Darjan Singh no substitution application was moved within limitation, therefore, the suit has abated. (4). I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists Shri Prakash Tatia at length. (5). Learned counsel for the revisionists urged before me that after institution of suit, if Darjan Singh expired then his legal representatives named above have no justification whatsoever to move an application under 0.22. r.5 CPC. It is vehemently urged before me by Shri Tatia that the learned trial court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to allow the said application which was not accompanied with an application for setting aside abatement. (6). In my humble opinion if an application for substitution is moved then such application also includes an application for setting aside the abatement by necessary implication and the court of law ordinarily should not insist for moving two separate applications i.e. one for substitution and other for setting aside the abatement order. Moving a substitution applica- tion explaining the delay tantamount an application for substitution as well as application for setting aside abatement. A litigant cannot be allowed to suffer nor he can be denied a legal legitimate relief merely because a wrong section or a wrong order is mentioned in a suit or in an application. (7). Learned counsel for the revisionists Shri Tatia frankly admitted before me that the aplication moved by the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Darjan Singh on 20.4.95 was within 150 days. (7). Learned counsel for the revisionists Shri Tatia frankly admitted before me that the aplication moved by the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Darjan Singh on 20.4.95 was within 150 days. If it is so then it would be an empty formality to entertain the present revision merely for academic exercise which is not permissible within the meaning of amended Sec. 115 CPC. According to the phraseology used under Sec. 115 CPC mere jurisdictional error is not sufficient to entertain a revision unless it is further demonstrated that if the order impugned is allowed to stand it would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable loss to the party against whom it was made. In the present revision nothing has been brought to my notice that if the order impugned is allowed to stand any of the consequences enumerated above would ensue against revisionists. (8). Learned counsel for the revisionists further candidly admitted that the suit in question is a suit for partition. It is settled principle of law that there is no limitation for filing a suit for partition because in a suit for partition cause of action is always treated to be a continuing cause of action till property in dispute is partitioned. In such a situation where the cause of action is continuing and no limitaion is prescribed, fresh suit is not barred within the meaning of 0.9 r. 4 CPC. In the present case amended plaint filed by heirs and legal representatives of deceased Darjan Singh upon which summons have been issued to the defendant revisionists can be treated to be a fresh suit for partition. (9). It is pertinent to mention here that right to bring a suit for partition is also a continuing right incidental to ownership of joint property of the parties and such suit is not barred under 0.22 r.9 CPC. O.22 r.9 CPC clearly provides that where a suit abated or is dismissed under this order, no fresh suit can be filed on the same cause of action (Emphasis supplied). I am disposed to hold that a suit for partition is never barred under O.22 r.9 CPC even though on an earlier occasion a previous suit for partition has either abated automatically or dismissed by court under the said order. I am disposed to hold that a suit for partition is never barred under O.22 r.9 CPC even though on an earlier occasion a previous suit for partition has either abated automatically or dismissed by court under the said order. The expression `same cause of action used under O.22 r.9 CPC does not include within its ambit a continuing cause of action. (10). In my considered opinion the newly inserted sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of Order 22 has diluted the rigour of the strict compliance of Order 22 in those cases where defendant has not filed written statement. Filing of written statement in a suit is a condition precedent to attract the strict com- pliance of the provisions of O.22 CPC. Indisputably in the present case when Darjan Singh expired neither summons were served to the defendant revisionists nor they have filed written statement in the partition suit, therefore, consequences contemplated under O.22 r.1 to 10 are not attracted. (11). In the present case on 28.12.1994 on the death of Darjan Singh, on the date of moving application on 20.4.1995 by the heirs and legal representatives of deceased and on the date of filing of amended plaint neither summons were served upon the defendant revisionists nor they have filed their written statement, therefore, the learned trial court was within its jurisdiction to strike of the name of deceased Darjan Singh and to add the names of his heirs and legal representatives in his place in exercise of its power under Order I sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of CPC. Consequently, the instant revision lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed in limine.