Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. Defendant No. 10 petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 14.6.2005 passed by the Xlth Subordinate Judge, Patna in Title Suit No. 653 of 1987, substituting the heirs of defendant no. 2 late Pratap Dhari Singh, has filed this civil revision application. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the original plaintiff Ram Kishore Prasad Narayan Singh filed suit for declaration that he is the co-sharer to the extent of 1/6th share with defendant 1st set and in joint possession in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedules of the plaint, impleading Girija Devi and Birendra Dhari Singh as defendant nos. 2 and 3 respectively. Sri Ram Janki Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited (petitioner herein) claims to be a registered Housing Co-operative Society. It claims to have purchased part and parcel of the suit land from defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 for its use through registered sale deed. After it came to know about institution of the suit made prayer for being added as defendant under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Said prayer was allowed and Sri Ram Janki Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited was added as defendant no. 10. Defendant no. 10 filed written statement and contested the suit. During the pendency ol the suit original plaintiff, namely, Ran Kishore Prasad Narayna Singh died on 15.3.2001 leaving behind his widow, two sons and a daughter. Maksudpur Institute of Research and Education in Natural anil Social Sciences (opposite party no. I herein) filed petition dated 11.6.2001 no der Order I Rule 10 and Sec.151 o the Code of Civil Procedure through it authorised trustee, namely, Ajay Singh f( being substituted as plaintiff on the basil of deed of assignment alleged to hav been executed by the original plaintiffi its favour with respect to all the properties including the suit property. Said application as allowed by order dated 5.7.2003 and Maksudpur Institute of Research and Education in Natural and Social Sciences, hereinafter referred to as the MIRENS, was substituted as plaintiff through its trustee, namely, Ajay Singh. Defendant no. 10 being aggrieved by the same filed Civil Revision No. 1680 of 2003 before this Court impleading defendant no. 2 as opposite party no. 7. During the pendency of the said revision application, defendant no. Defendant no. 10 being aggrieved by the same filed Civil Revision No. 1680 of 2003 before this Court impleading defendant no. 2 as opposite party no. 7. During the pendency of the said revision application, defendant no. 2 died, which fact has been noted in the order of this court dated 28.6.2004. However, it seems that no step was taken to substitute his heirs before this Court and the civil revision application was disposed of by order dated 8.12.2004. 3. After the disposal of the aforesaid civil revision application, defendant no. 10 filed petition dated 29.7.204 in the suit informing the court abut the death of defendant no. 2 Pratap Dhari Singh and prayed for its dismissal having been abated for non-substitution of his heirs within the period of limitation. Plaintiff then filed petition dated 9.8.2004 for substituting his heirs. On 6.1.2005, another petition was filed to add the relief of setting aside abatement in the petition dated 9.8.2004. Another application was filed on 24.1.2005 under Order XXII Rule 4(4) read with Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for deleting the name of defendant no. 2 on the ground that he is not a necessary party. Plaintiff did not press its application dated 9.8.2004 and 6.1.2005 and both were dismissed for default by order dated 25.2.2005. After dismissal of the aforesaid petitions, plaintiffs pressed the petition dated 24.1.2005 for deleting the name of defendant no. 2, but said application was rejected by order dated 8.4.2005. Nobody assailed the aforesaid order, but the plaintiff filed another petition dated 25.5.2005 for substituting the heirs of defendant no. 2 in his place. Further he filed application dated 31.5.2005 for adding the prayer for setting aside the abatement. Defendant no. 10 opposed the prayer primarily on the ground that the plaintiff despite knowledge about the death of defendant no. 2 did not take step for substitution within the period of limitation and not assigned cogent reason for setting aside the abatement. By reason of the impugned order, the application filed by the plaintiff dated 25.5.2005 and 31.5.2005 have been allowed and the heirs of defendant no. 2 have been substituted in his place. 4. Mr. Santosh Kumar Sinha, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the earlier application filed by the plaintiff for substituting the heirs of defendant no. By reason of the impugned order, the application filed by the plaintiff dated 25.5.2005 and 31.5.2005 have been allowed and the heirs of defendant no. 2 have been substituted in his place. 4. Mr. Santosh Kumar Sinha, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the earlier application filed by the plaintiff for substituting the heirs of defendant no. 2 having been rejected, the court below later on ought not to have allowed the substitution petition. 5. Mr. Sukumar Sinha, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of plaintiff-opposite party no.1, however, submits that the earlier application filed for substitution was not dismissed as withdrawn but dismissed for default as not pressed. He points out that the earlier order was not on merit and hence the court below did not lack jurisdiction to allow the application for substitution. 6. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. From the perusal of the order, it is evident that earlier application filed for substituting the heirs was dismissed for default and on fact no decision was taken on merit. In such a situation it cannot be said that the court lacked jurisdiction to pass order for substitution of the heirs on merit. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then contends that the application for substitution having been filed beyond the period of limitation abatement had already taken place after passage of time and hence the court below acted beyond jurisdiction by allowing the substitution petition, without setting aside the abatement. He points out that limitation commences from the date of death and not from the knowledge of date of death and the plaintiff having not filed any limitation petition, question of condoning the delay did not arise at all. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in. the case of Madan Naik (dead by LRs.) and others vs. Mst. Hansubala Devi and others [AIR 1983 Supreme Court 676] and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 5 of the judgment, which reads as follows : "It may be mentioned that no specific order for abatement of a proceeding under one or the other provision of O. 22 is envisaged, the abatement takes place on its own force by passage of time. In fact, a specific order is necessary under O. 22, R. 9, C.P.C. for setting aside the abatement." 8. Reliance has also been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ram Charan (deceased) through his legal representatives [AIR 1964 Supreme Court 215] and in the case of Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and others vs Gobardhan Sao and others [(2002)3 Supreme Court Cases 195], 9. Learned Counsel for opposite party no.1, however, contends that the order impugned cannot be said to have been vitiated only on the ground that while allowing the substitution it had not set aside the abatement. He contends that this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction does not interfere with such order. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. vs. Bhutnath Banerjee and others. [AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1336] and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 7 of the judgment, which reads as follows: "It is not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to state the reasons which were urged as a justifiable excuse for the inability of the appellant to take the necessary steps earlier. It is not open to the High Court to question the findings of fact recorded by a subordinate Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Code which, it is well-settled, applies to cases involving questions of jurisdiction, i.e., questions regarding the irregular exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction or the illegal assumption of jurisdiction by a Court and is not directed against conclusion of law or fact in which questions of jurisdiction are not involved; See Bala Krishna Udayar vs. Vasudeva Aiyar, 44 Ind App 261 at p. 267 : (AIR 1917 PC 71 at p 73); A Batchamian Sahib and Co. vs. A.N. Channiah, C.As. Nos. 452 and 487 of 1962 D/19.10.1962 (SC).This Legal position is not disputed by the respondents." 10. vs. A.N. Channiah, C.As. Nos. 452 and 487 of 1962 D/19.10.1962 (SC).This Legal position is not disputed by the respondents." 10. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and others vs. Gobardhan Sao and others [(2002)3 Supreme Court Cases 195] and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 13 of the judgment, which reads as follows : "In view of the foregoing discussions, We are clearly of the opinion that on the lacis of the present case, the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby prayers for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement were refused and accordingly the delay in filing the petition for setting aside abatement is condoned, abatement is set aside and prayer for substitution is granted." 11. Recently a Division Bench of this Court considered this question in the case of Most. Indu Devi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [ 2007(2) PLJR 200 ] and observed as follows : "2. Although the reason given for the delay in filing the application for setting aside of abatement and substitution are not convincing, but having regard to the fact that family disputes must be resolved finally, we condone the delay in filing the application for setting aside abatement and for substitution and accordingly record the death of the sole private-respondent and bring on record his heirs and legal representatives as particularised in the application." 12. Having considered the rival sub-mission, I do not find it a case involving questions of jurisdiction calling for interfer-. ence by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and I am inclined to dismiss the same on this ground alone. 13. Accordingly, this revision application stands dismissed.