A.M. Sapre, C.J. - This is a civil revision filed by the legal representatives of defendant No. 7 (late - Tajmul Ali Laskar) under Section 115 of C.P. Code against the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Cacher (Silchar) in T.A. No. 36 of 2006 and also against the order dated 06.03.2013 passed by Munsiff No. 2 Cachar, Silchar in T.S. No. 148 of 2011. 2. Facts of the case need mention in brief to appreciate the short controversy involved in the revision. 3. The respondents herein filed a civil suit being T.S. No. 106 72001 against 7 defendants for declaration of their title and for recovery of khas possession along with other ancillary reliefs over the suit lands. One Tajmul Ali Laskar was defendant (defendant No. 7) in the suit. During pendency of the suit, parties to the suit filed a compromise petition on 03.02.2004 to settle their dispute in relation to some of the suit properties and accordingly obtained compromise decree in part. However, the suit for remaining properties, which were not subject matter of compromise decree, remained pending for disposal on merits. 4. Tajmul Ali Laskar felt aggrieved of the part compromise decree passed by the trial court, filed first appeal before the Additional District Judge, Cacher (Silchar) being T. A.36 of 2006. During pendency of this appeal, Tajmul Ali Laskar died on 17.04.2009. The petitioners of this revision claming to be the legal representatives of late Tajmul Ali Laskar filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure for substitution of their names in the appeal in place of appellant (Tajmul Ali Laskar). It is this application, which was dismissed by the appellate court on the ground that since the application for substitution was filed beyond the period of 90 days from the date of death of Tajmul Ali and hence, the appeal stood abated. The appellate court therefore, dismissed the appeal as having abated on 14.07.2011. 5. The petitioners then filed another application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) ibid before the Munsiff No. 2 in a pending title suit No. 148/2011 for becoming party defendants in place of deceased - Tajmul Ali Laskar (defendant No. 7) in the suit. The appellate court therefore, dismissed the appeal as having abated on 14.07.2011. 5. The petitioners then filed another application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) ibid before the Munsiff No. 2 in a pending title suit No. 148/2011 for becoming party defendants in place of deceased - Tajmul Ali Laskar (defendant No. 7) in the suit. This application was dismissed by the Munsiff No. 2 by order dated 06.09.2013 on the ground that since the appellate court by order dated 14.07.2011 has dismissed the petitioner's application for becoming party in the appeal (T.A. 36/2006) and dismissed the appeal as abated, the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 ibid in the title suit has to be dismissed. 6. The petitioners felt aggrieved of these two orders i.e. the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by Additional District Judge in T.A. 36/2006 and order dated 06.09.2013 passed by Munsiff No. 2 in pending title suit has filed this revision petition. 7. Heard Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, I am constrained to allow the revision and while setting aside of both the orders issue necessary directions for ensuring compliance for deciding the appeal and the tide suit 9. At the outset, I consider it proper to clarify the legal position, arising in this case, which unfortunately was not noticed first by the two courts below and second by the petitioners while taking recourse to the legal remedies. 10. In the first place, the petitioners should not have filed one revision against two orders passed by two different courts appellate court in appeal and by the Munsiff in title suit, hi other words, the petitioners as per rules could file only one revision challenging one order. Secondly, the right to challenge the order dated 14.07.2011 accrued to petitioners no sooner it was passed but they did not challenge the order immediately and waited for 3 years. Thirdly, no revision is maintainable against the order dismissing the first appeal as abated. Such order is appeal-able under Section 100 in second appeal, because once the first appeal is dismissed - may be on any ground - the eventual consequence is that of "dismissal of appeal". Thirdly, no revision is maintainable against the order dismissing the first appeal as abated. Such order is appeal-able under Section 100 in second appeal, because once the first appeal is dismissed - may be on any ground - the eventual consequence is that of "dismissal of appeal". Such dismissal of appeal amounts to a decree and only appeal lies under Section 100 ibid against the decree. Fourthly, the petitioners did not apply for condonation of delay in filing the revision in so far as it seek to challenge the order dated 14.07.2011. 11. Having taken note of these defects whether one may call them as technical or otherwise, I am of the view that both the orders are otherwise not legally sustainable in law and hence, deserves to be set aside. In my view, the issue arising in the order dated 14.07.2011 involve substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100, viz. whether first appellate court was justified in dismissing the appeal as abated without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to make an application for setting aside of the abatement and secondly, whether petitioners were able to make out a case for setting aside of the abatement to enable them to prosecute the appeal filed by their late father on merits by becoming appellants in the said appeal? Such question can be examined by this court in its second appellate as well as revisionary jurisdiction because whether second appeal under Section 100 or/and revision under Section 115 both are filed in this court. 12. Having regard to the nature of controversy and the fact that first appeal arose out of same title suit and all parties are present in this revision, I am of the view that legality and correctness of the orders impugned in the revision can be examined in these proceedings to avoid any delay in pending suit by ignoring the technical defects. 13. Coming now to the question as to whether order dated 14.07.2011 is legally sustainable, in my view, it is not. It is for more than one reason. 14. In the first place, since admittedly the petitioners were legal representatives of late Tejumal Ali Laskar and hence, they had a right to become party in appeal. Secondly, the right to sue/prosecute the appeal did devolve upon them after the death of Tejmul Ali Laskar as legal representatives. It is for more than one reason. 14. In the first place, since admittedly the petitioners were legal representatives of late Tejumal Ali Laskar and hence, they had a right to become party in appeal. Secondly, the right to sue/prosecute the appeal did devolve upon them after the death of Tejmul Ali Laskar as legal representatives. Thirdly, though there was delay in filing the application for substitution, yet it was not inordinate. In other words, the death took place on 17.04.2011 whereas the application was filed on 17.09.2011. Fourthly, it has been the consistent view of the Apex Court in number of decisions that the approach of the courts in condoning the delay in filing applications for substitution and for setting aside the abatement should always be liberal and should lean in favour of the applicant unless delay is totally unexplained or inordinate one. Such was not the case. Fifthly, this court is satisfied that cause for delay was just and proper and hence, deserves to be condoned and lastly, condoning the delay always advances the cause of justice whereas refusal results in denial of doing substantial justice and deprives the party concern to prosecute their case on merits. 15. It is for all these reasons, I am not inclined to uphold the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Cachar, Silchar in T.A. No 36 of 2006 and accordingly, set aside the same. As a result, the application filed by the petitioners for substitution of petitioners as appellants is allowed and abatement, if any, is set aside. As a consequence, the T.A. No 36/2006 is restored to its file before the Additional District Judge, Cachar (Silchar) for its hearing on merits. The appellate court will now fix the appeal for its hearing and the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law after making necessary amendments in the memo of appeal within 6 months. 16. Coming now to the legality of the order dated 06.09.2013 passed by the Munsiff in T.S. No. 2148/2011, the same also is not legally sustainable and deserves to be set aside for more than one reason. In the first place, the petitioners should have filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P. Code rather than under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code. Secondly, it was a case of substitution of legal representatives consequent upon the death of defendant No. 7. In the first place, the petitioners should have filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P. Code rather than under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code. Secondly, it was a case of substitution of legal representatives consequent upon the death of defendant No. 7. Thirdly, dismissal of appeal by order dated 14.07.2011 had nothing to do with the right of petitioners to file an application for substitution in the suit under order 22 Rule 4. In other words, notwithstanding dismissal of the appeal which only resulted in taking away the petitioners' right to prosecute the appeal, but it certainly did not take away their right to defend the suit on merits, hi these circumstances, even after dismissal of the appeal as abated, the petitioners' right to prosecute the title suit as one of the defendants could not have been taken away from them and lastly, now that the order dated 14.07.2011 has been set aside by this court and hence, the order dated 06.09.2013 is also liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. As a consequence, the petitioners' application wrongly filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (it should have been under Order 22 Rule 4) is allowed. The petitioners are allowed to become defendants in place of deceased defendant No. 7 to contest the title suit on merits. Let the amendment be carried out in the plaint and title suit be decided in accordance with law within one year. 17. In the light of foregoing discussion, the revision succeeds and is allowed. 18. A copy of this order be filed in T. A. No. 36/2006 and in T.S. No. 1487 2011 for ensuring compliance as directed above. No cost.