M. S. A. SIDDIQUI ( 1 ) CHALLENGE has been made in this revision petition to the order dated 28. 9. 92 passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge allowing the application filed by the respondent under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. ( 2 ) in order to appreciate the point involved in the revision. it is necessary to state certain facts. Plaintiff Triloki Nath Verma filed the Suit No. 164/87 against the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 29. 700. 00. On 15- 12-1987 during pendency of the suit. the plaintiff died An unsigned application by his daughter (respondent) to be substituted as his legal representative, was filed on 21. 3. 1988. The learned Addl. District Judge. allowed the application filed by the respondent. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners have come up in revision before this Court. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has streneously urged that the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in entertaining the application U/o 22 R 3 CPC which was not only barred by time but was not even signed by the respondent. Admittedly, the application filed U/o 22 R 3 CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not signed by the respondent. In my opinion, the omission of the respondents signature on the said application does not invalidate the application at least in a case like the present where the correctness and authenticity of the application is undisputed It is also significant that on 15-2-1991. the reslpondents statement was also recorded in support of the said application. It has to be borne in mind that rules of procedure are intended to be a hand maid to the administration of justice. Procedure is meant to subserve and not to rule the cause of justice. (Owners and parlies interested in M. V. Valipero Vs Fernandeo Lopez AIR 1989 SC 2206 . Manchurlal Vs N. B. M. Supply, Gurgaon AIR 1969 SC 1267 ) In the present case the learned Trial Judge in allowing the application filed on behalf of the respondent, has adopted the pragamatic approach to advance substantial cause of justice and the impugned order can t be faulted on the sole ground that the application for substitution was not signed by the respondent. ( 4 ) AS regards the second objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Trial Judge, in his discretion, has condoned the delay in filing the application U/o 22 R 3 CPC. It is well settled that unless the discretion is exercised in a perverse manner, or is vitiated by a misdirection in law, the revisional Court will not interfere under Section 115 CPC. Assuming (hat the application filed by the respondent under Order 22 R 3 CPC was barred by time as the last date of limitation for filing it was 14- 3-1988. the application can be treated as one for setting aside the abatement. (Union of India Vs Kundan AIR. 1977 Delhi 38 ). In my opinion the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity. ( 5 ) IN the result the revision petition is dismissed. Costs of this revision shall be costs in the suit. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 30-4-1996.