JUDGMENT :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. Challenge is to the order no.12 dated April 24, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalyani in Misc. Case No.47 of 2007 arising out of the Misc. Case No.82 of 1994. The opposite parties of the original Misc. Case No.82 of 1994 have preferred this revisional application. The short fact is that the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties, namely, Kalipada Mandal instituted the Misc. Case No.82 of 1994 under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for preemption in respect of 29 decimals of land, as described in the schedule3 of the plaint. That misc. case is being contested by the present petitioners. It appears that they adopted various measures so that the misc. case could not be proceeded with. First of all, the misc. case was fixed for matters relating to deposit of the consideration money along with 10% of the same. The petitioners were not satisfied with the orders relating to deposit of the consideration money. The petitioners preferred a misc. revisional application being C.R.No.50 of 1997 before the learned Additional District Judge No.II. That was disposed of by the concerned learned Additional District Judge No.II. But being not satisfied, the opposite parties preferred a civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble Justice Amitava Lala disposed of the said revisional application thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. The original petitioner, that is, the preemptor died on December 24, 1997 and the heirs of late Kalipada Mandal preferred the said revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble High Court. In the meantime, several steps were taken by the parties. The petitioners preferred a civil revisional application being C.R. No.5 of 2003 before the learned District Judge, Nadia incorporating the names of the heirs of late Kalipada Mandal. Ultimately, both the parties proceeded with the said Misc. Case No.82 of 1994 and evidence on the said misc. case for pre-emption was closed and the matter was fixed for hearing argument of the misc. case. Ultimately, both the parties proceeded with the said Misc. Case No.82 of 1994 and evidence on the said misc. case for pre-emption was closed and the matter was fixed for hearing argument of the misc. case. At that time, the learned Advocate for the present petitioners drew attention of the Court to the effect that after death of Late Kalipada Mandal on December 24, 1997, 10 years have already passed but no step for substitution of the heirs of the pre-emptor was taken in the misc. case and so the misc. case has abated. The prayer was made for noting abatement. The prayer was allowed. Another round of litigation proceeded under Section 151 of the C.P.C. on substitution. Thereafter, steps under Order 22 of the C.P.C. were taken and the learned Trial Judge passed the impugned order dated April 24, 2008 holding that the pre-emptors have shown sufficient reason for not taking steps for substitution and as such allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the Misc. Case No.47 of 2007 for setting aside abatement was allowed on contest. Being aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties of the misc. case for preemption have preferred this application. Now, the question is whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and in consequence allowing the Misc. Case No.47 of 2007. Upon hearing the submission of the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record as well as the written arguments submitted by the parties, I find that a question of law is involved in the matter. Late Kalipada Mandal instituted the original misc. case for pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. Several steps were taken by the parties as noted above. Late Kalipada Mandal died in the meantime on December 24, 1997. Thereafter, the heirs of Kalipada Mandal instituted a revisional application before the Hon’ble Court and it was contested by the petitioners herein. Subsequently, the petitioners herein instituted the C.R. No.5 of 2003 before the learned District Judge, Nadia and in that case they filed an application for substitution of the heirs of late Kalipada Mandal in the said C.R. case No.5 of 2003. Subsequently, the petitioners herein instituted the C.R. No.5 of 2003 before the learned District Judge, Nadia and in that case they filed an application for substitution of the heirs of late Kalipada Mandal in the said C.R. case No.5 of 2003. Thus, from the above situation, it is clear that substitution of the legal heirs of deceased Kalipada Mandal was duly recorded in the revisional proceedings pending before the higher forum. Mr. Jha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that since no prayer for substitution was made in the misc. case for pre-emption, so the application for pre-emption has automatically abated. The learned Trial Judge was not justified in allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the misc. case for setting aside the abatement after lapse of 10 years from the date of death of Kalipada Mandal. Thus, he submits that the impugned order should not be supported. It must be set aside. On the other hand, Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, submits that the learned Trial Judge has rightly allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the misc. case for setting aside the order of abatement. He contends that while disposing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the misc. case being Misc. Case No.47 of 2007, the learned Trial Judge has recorded evidence and on the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge has come to a finding that the petitioners of the misc. case for pre-emption have shown sufficient reasons for setting aside the order of abatement. The findings of the learned Trial Judge is based on evidence. It does not suffer from perversity. This being the position, in view of the unreported decision of this Bench in C.O. No.2010 of 2010 dated August 13, 2010 the discretionary power exercised by the learned appellate Court was not interfered with. At the time of passing of that judgment, reliance was placed in the case reported in 2009 (6) Supreme 78 . The P.W.1 of the said misc. case adduced evidence as to sufficient cause. The petitioners have not adduced evidence. While the opposite parties of the said misc. At the time of passing of that judgment, reliance was placed in the case reported in 2009 (6) Supreme 78 . The P.W.1 of the said misc. case adduced evidence as to sufficient cause. The petitioners have not adduced evidence. While the opposite parties of the said misc. case for preemption, that is, the petitioners herein filed a C.R. Case No.5 of 2003 before the learned District Judge, Nadia, they filed an application for substitution of the heirs of deceased Kalipada Mandal before the revisional Court. In support of such statement, the heirs of late Kalipada Mandal have produced the information slip marked exhibit 1 in the said misc. case no.47 of 2007. The copy of such information slip has been annexed in the written argument appearing as annexure –B. The petitioners herein did not adduce any contrary evidence, as noted earlier. So, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on behalf of the petitioners of the said misc. case being Misc. Case No.47 of 2007, the learned Trial Judge has allowed the misc. case after allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity. As regards the law point, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that when appropriate steps for substitution of the legal heirs of deceased Kalipada Mandal was taken before the revisional Court by the respective parties and they proceeded with the matter knowing that the heirs of the original pre-emptor were proceeding with the revisional matters or contesting the revisional case filed by the petitioners herein, no abatement occurs if the heirs of the deceased pre-emptor were not noted. It is a matter irregularity. Such clerical mistake can always be rectified subsequently, when proper steps were taken by the respective parties in the revisional matters. In support of such submission, Mr. Chakraborty has referred to the decision of (2003) 10 SCC 691 . For proper appreciation of the said decision, I am quoting herewith the paragraph no.11 of the said decision:- “11. There is yet another aspect of the matter. As we have already noticed, the appeal against the order of ad interim injunction passed by the learned trial Judge was pending before the Division Bench. Therein the defendants had themselves moved an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, that is, the respondent in their appeal. There is yet another aspect of the matter. As we have already noticed, the appeal against the order of ad interim injunction passed by the learned trial Judge was pending before the Division Bench. Therein the defendants had themselves moved an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, that is, the respondent in their appeal. The legal representatives being brought on record at any stage of the proceedings enures for the benefit of the entire proceedings. The prayer made by the defendants in their appeal for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff respondent in appeal was not opposed by the legal representatives or by any of the co-plaintiffs. Rather the prayer was virtually conceded to by the legal representatives themselves moving an application for being brought on record in the suit in place of the deceased plaintiff. In our opinion, the application made by the defendant-appellants in the appeal once allowed would have the effect of bringing the legal representatives on record, not only in the appeal but also in the suit. All that would remain to be done is the ministerial act of correcting the index of the parties by the applicants in appeal and then in the suit. In view of the defendants themselves having sought for impleadment of the legal representatives in the appeal the delay in moving the application in the suit by the legal representatives, being subsequent in point of time, became meaningless.” This decision, I am of the view is fully applicable in the instant case. Similarly, Mr. Chakraborty has also referred to the decision of AIR 2006 Allahabad 163 which clearly lays down that substitution of deceased plaintiff in revisional proceeding when made, failure of the plaintiff to move formal substitution application before the learned Trial Court for the purpose of incorporating amendment in array of parties would not amount to abatement of the suit. This decision is also in consonance of the present one. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge has rightly allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and in consequence, she has rightly allowed the Misc. Case No.47 of 2007. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge has not committed any material irregularity in setting aside the abatement after death of the original preemptor. Case No.47 of 2007. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge has not committed any material irregularity in setting aside the abatement after death of the original preemptor. Therefore, the revisional application fails to succeed. It is, therefore, dismissed. Since the pre-emption proceeding is at the stage of argument, the learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the said pre-emption proceeding, that is, the original Misc. Case No.82 of 1994 within two months from the date of communication of this order. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.