Honble KEJRIWAL, J. – The suit of the plaintiff non- petitioner for eviction was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 5.8.1992. Against the said decree the defendant Bhanwar Lal filed Civil Regular First Appeal in the Court of Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu. During the pendency of the appeal he died on 13.2.1993. On 22.12.1993, legal heirs of the defendant i.e. the present petitioners filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. mentioning therein that the defendant Bhanwar Lal died on 22.10.1993. It was prayed that his legal representatives i.e. the petitioners may be brought on record. On receipt of a copy of the said application the plaintiff non- petitioner raised an objection that the defendant died not on 22.10.1993 but on 13.2.1993. Under such circumstances the petitioner filed again an application on 1.2.1995 under Order 22 rule 9 C.P.C. Again the non-petitioner raised an objection that the application was barred by time. In such circumstances the petitioners again filed an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu, vide his order dated 26.7.1995 dismissed all these applications. This order has been challenged by the legal heirs of the defendants. (2). I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the judgments cited by them and also the judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu. This fact is not disputed that the original defendant Shri Bhanwar Lal died on 13.2.1993 and the application under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. was filed on 22.12.1993. It is also not disputed that the petitioners have mentioned a false fact that the original defendant died on 22.10.1993. Under such circumstances the affidavit of the petitioners submitted in support of their application under Order 22 rule 9 C.P.C. cannot be believed. Similarly the affidavit of the petitioners submitted in support of their application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act can not be believed. It appears to me that the petitioners intentionally mentioned false date of death in their original application submitted under Order 22 rule 3 C.P.C. so that the application may be treated within time. The petitioners made an attempt to mislead the Court and under these circumstances, they are not entitled to any sympathy of the Court. It appears to me that the petitioners intentionally mentioned false date of death in their original application submitted under Order 22 rule 3 C.P.C. so that the application may be treated within time. The petitioners made an attempt to mislead the Court and under these circumstances, they are not entitled to any sympathy of the Court. The judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner and reported in AIR 1983 SC 355 (1) and AIR 1985 SC 606 (2) are distinguishable and are not relevant to the facts of the present case. The learned District Judge has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application and passing the impugned order. There is no merit in the revision application and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs. The stay order is vacated.