Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This Revision petition has been preferred by the above named plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 12.3.1991 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh in Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 1988. whereby and where under the order of abatement passed in Partition Suit No. 131 of 1989 on 6.2.1988 by the 5th Sub Judge, Hazaribagh has been confirmed for non substitution of the heirs of deceased defendant No. 1, Meghan Mian. 2. The Partition Suit was filed by the plaintiff wherein Meghan Mian along with others have been made defendants in the suit. Meghan Mians eldest son was also a defendant originally in the suit being a co-sharer in the suit property. After the evidence was closed and the case was pending for argument, then on 19.11.1986 defendant No. 2 filed a petition before the court of Sub Judge, to the effect that defendant No. 1 Meghan Mian died on 31.8.1986, but it appears that such information was supplied in a petition for adjournment and no separate petition was filed and no copy was served on the basis of that petition, the learned Sub Judge was on the impression of a simple petition for adjournment did not mention anything about the death of defendant No. 1, Meghan Mian. Then on 16.1.1987, the defendant No. 2 again filed a petition reiterating the facts stated on 19.11.1986 regarding the death of defendant No. 1 and orders were passed for substituting the heirs of defendant No. 1. but then also no substitution petition was filed from the side of the plaintiff. Again on 12.3.1987 the defendant No. 2 filed petition praying that the suit being abated against the defendant No. 1 and the suit being a Partition Suit, it had abated as whole. On that very date at about 3.15 p.m., the plaintiff filed a petition for substitution of the heirs of defendant No. 1, Meghan Mian and for setting aside the abatement order. The plaintiff contended that the defendant No. 1 died in the month of November, 1986 and not in the month of August, 1986 as stated by the defendant No. 2. 3. After hearing both the parties, the learned Sub Judge held that the suit had already been abated as the heirs of defendant No. l had not been brought on record in time and no petition for setting aside abatement, with condonation petition was filed. 3. After hearing both the parties, the learned Sub Judge held that the suit had already been abated as the heirs of defendant No. l had not been brought on record in time and no petition for setting aside abatement, with condonation petition was filed. Against that abatement order, the plaintiff filed Misc. Appeal, as mentioned above, but the appellate court also confirmed the abatement order. 4. Mr. A.N. Deo, counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the petition dated 12.3.1987 along with substitution prayer, there was a prayer of setting aside of abatement, but that has not been considered by either of the lower courts. 5. Mr. P.C Roy, appearing for and on behalf of the Opposite parties has argued that even if there was a prayer for setting aside for abatement of 12.3.1987 then also the same is not maintainable, when there was no prayer for condonation of delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act as contemplated under Order XXII Rule 4 of the C.P.C. 6. According to the plaintiff-petitioner, his date of knowledge is 16.1.1987 and from that date if calculated the date of application for setting aside abatement i.e. 12.3.1987, the petition is within time i.e. within 90 days. About the death of Meghan Mian, according to the petitioner, it was sometime in the November, 1986 and not in August, 1986 and if the death is in November, 1986 then the question of condonation of limitation under Sec. 5 of the limitation Act does not arise as the same is within 90-60 days. 7. However, one fact has been left out of the notice of either of the courts that one of heirs of deceased Meghan Mian was already on record and as such the estate of Meghan Mian was sufficiently been represented. But being a Partition suit, all his other heirs being co-sharers are also required to be brought on record and for such bringing of other heirs, the limitation matter is not of much importance. It can be formally brought on record before an effective decree is passed. 8. In view of the above legal position, I find that the learned Courts below did not approach the matter in its proper angle and as such arrived at an erroneous finding regarding abatement of the suit as a whole. 9. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. 8. In view of the above legal position, I find that the learned Courts below did not approach the matter in its proper angle and as such arrived at an erroneous finding regarding abatement of the suit as a whole. 9. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed in Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 1988 and the order dated 6.2.1988 in Partition Suit No. 131 of 1979 are hereby set aside. 10. As the suit is a long pending one and as it is found that the evidence in the case have already been closed, disposal of the suit may be expedited by allowing the substitution petition and get the other heirs of the defendant No. 1 be substituted as party defendants in the suit, and proceed according to law. In the nature and circumstances of the case no order as to costs.