Order Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 2. In this petition the petitioners, who are respondents in Title Appeal No. 94 of 1977, have assailed an order dated 6.7.1994 passed by the lower appellate court in the appeal, whereby the learned lower appellate court exercising its discretion under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code' for short) has exempted the heirs of one Kishori Devi for being added as party respondents. 3. The order seems to have been passed in the following back grounds: After the appeal had been preferred, notice was issued to one Kishori Devi, who was one of the parties in the suit, (out of which the appeal had arisen) and was impleaded as a respondent. The service report on the notice that was received indicated that Kishori Devi had died. The appellants did not file any petition for substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of Kishori Devi. A dispute was later raised as to whether or not Kishori Devi had left behind any son or daughter of her own. It seems from the order passed by this Court on 18th of January, 1989 in Civil Revision No. 1787 of 1988 that this matter had come up for consideration and this Court disposed of the revision petition by making the following observations and directions : "3. In my view since it is disputed as to whether Kishori Devi died issueless or leaving behind the heirs aforesaid, the matter could not be disposed of by the impugned order without holding any enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') after giving opportunity to lead evidence to the parties in support of their respective cases. 4. In the result, this civil revision application is allowed and that portion of impugned order, by which the court below has held that Title Appeal No. 94 of 1977 has not abated against the heirs of Kishori Devi is set aside and the appellate court is directed to hold enquiry in the light of the aforesaid observations. " It seems that in pursuance of the direction as contained in the order of the High Court an enquiry was held and the learned appellate court has given a finding that Kishori Devi had left behind two sons and four daughters. " It seems that in pursuance of the direction as contained in the order of the High Court an enquiry was held and the learned appellate court has given a finding that Kishori Devi had left behind two sons and four daughters. The learned appellate court however, took the view that since Sarjug Singh through whom Kishori Devi made claim, and Kishori Devi too, had not contested the suit, nor did she file any written statement, the heirs of Kishori Devi could be exempted under the provision of Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code. By the impugned order the learned court below has exempted them from being impleaded as respondents. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners-respondents is that in view of the previous back ground of the case the discretion exercised by the learned appellate court in granting exemption under the provision of Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code is absolutely improper and unjustified and it can be said to be illegal exercise of jurisdiction. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant opposite party has contended that if Kishori Devi and Sarjug had not made any contest when the matter was pending before the trial court, the condition, on which the discretion given to the court under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code for exempting the heirs and legal representatives of Kishori Devi could be exercised, was fully satisfied, and if the discretion has been used by the learned appellate court below under the aforesaid provision, no interference is needed with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 6. After considering carefully the submissions, I am of the opinion that in view of the previous directions contained in the order passed on 18th January, 1989 in Civil Revision No. 1787 of 1988, when earlier a contest had been made between the parties as to whether Kishori Devi had left behind any heir and legal representative of her own or died issueless, the exercise of discretion by the learned lower appellate court in granting exemption can be considered to be highly irregular, and it seems that material irregularity has been committed in exercise of discretion in not complying with the spirit of the earlier order passed by this Court. It seems that appellants had taken definite and categorical stand that Kishori Devi had no issue and on this aspect the matter was contested up to this Court by the parties. If in such back ground, this Court had directed enquiry and after enquiry the finding was in accordance with the stand taken by the petitioners that Kishori Devi had left behind some heirs and legal representatives, granting of the exemption, as has been done by the order, amounts to putting premium on the false stand taken earlier by the appellant-opposite party on the issue. 7. So, in this view of the matter, I allow this revision petition, set aside the impugned order and hold that the appeal stands abated so far the heirs and legal representatives of Kishori Devi are concerned. But the question as to whether the appeal is maintainable only as against the persons as already on record is left to be considered by the lower appellate court.