Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.:- Inspite of sufficient service no one has appeared on behalf of contesting respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Late Bhookan Singh husband of the petitioner instituted a suit being O.S. No.211 of 1987 for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant respondent nos. 3 to 7 ? Smt. Vidya Devi and others. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit. The petitioner filed substitution application seeking her substitution at the place of her husband on the basis of a Will dated 19.10.1983. The substitution application was filed on 16.1.1991. The defendants contended that the original plaintiff had died on 20/21 September, 1990 and not on 21.10.1990 as alleged by the petitioner in her substitution application. It was also contended by the defendants that over the agricultural land left behind by the original plaintiff, after his death the names of his sons had been mutated in the revenue record hence petitioner being wife could not seek substitution. The genuineness of the Will was also denied. The Trial court/Ist Additional Munsif, Kasganj which was in district Etah at that time rejected the substitution application through order dated 5.9.1994. The Trial court held that the date of death of the original plaintiff was not conclusively established as death certificate issued by some competent officer had not been filed by the petitioner. Photostat copy of the death certificate issued by some officer of S.N. Medical College, Agra filed by the petitioner regarding date of death was considered to be inadmissible in evidence. The trial court also noted the argument that Supervisor Kanoongo through order dated 3.10.1990 had entered the names of sons of the deceased plaintiff over the agricultural land left behind by him. The trial court held that no decision could be given as to whether the application was within time or not as correct date of death was not established. The second reason given was that the names of all the heirs were not mentioned in the substitution application. Against the order of the trial court petitioner filed civil revision no.93 of 1994. Additional District Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Etah dismissed the revision on 9.12.1997 hence this writ petition. Strangely enough the revisional court held that the order of the Trial court was illegal however, it dismissed the revision on the ground that instead of revision, misc. Against the order of the trial court petitioner filed civil revision no.93 of 1994. Additional District Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Etah dismissed the revision on 9.12.1997 hence this writ petition. Strangely enough the revisional court held that the order of the Trial court was illegal however, it dismissed the revision on the ground that instead of revision, misc. appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(k) C.P.C. ought to have been filed. The revisional court held that death occurred on 3.10.1990 (neither of the parties had asserted that death occurred on the said date). In my opinion both the courts below have taken extremely technical views. In substitution matters such strict view is not warranted. Even if substitution application was filed beyond 90 days still the delay was of less than a month. Photostat copy of the death certificate issued by the hospital had been filed. In substitution matters in a suit, evidence in the form of affidavit is admissible. The sons of the original plaintiff were not saying anything against the Will. Subsequent orders passed by Tehsil authorities could not be treated to be final in respect of date of death. Moreover, it does not appear that question of date of death was directly and substantially involved before the Tehsil authorities. Revisional court rightly held that substitution application could be treated to contain the prayer for setting aside the abatement also as it was admittedly filed within 150 days from date of death. However, revisional court should not have dismissed the revision on the ground that Misc. appeal ought to have been filed. Revisional jurisdiction is part of appellate jurisdiction and scope of interference in revision is narrower than in appeals. On the finding recorded by the lower appellate court the trial court committed error of jurisdiction by refusing to allow the substitution application after setting aside the abatement if necessary. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are set aside. Substitution application of the petitioner is allowed. On filing of certified copy of this judgment before the trial court, the trial court shall issue notice to the defendants/respondents as in this writ petition no one has appeared on their behalf.