JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kushwaha for the caveator. This writ petition has been filed against the order of Additional Commissioner dated 20.10.2009, by which the revision was allowed and the substitution application as well as consequential amendment application, have been allowed and the order of Board of Revenue dated 3.7.2015, dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order. A suit was filed by Hari Shyam Mishra under section 229-B, which was decreed ex parte by the order dated 21.6.1989. Thereafter, Daya Ram filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree, which was initially rejected. However, another application was filed, which was allowed by order dated 19.6.1989. Hari Shyam Mishra challenged the order dated 19.6.1989 in revision. During pendency of the revision, Daya Ram died. Therefore, Hari Shyam Mishra substituted the heirs of Daya Ram in revision. The revision was finally decided by Additional Commissioner by order dated 24.7.2006, who allowed the revision and set aside the order, setting aside the ex parte decree and remanded the case to Trial Court for deciding the delay condonation application, before passing any order in the recall application. After remand, the heirs of Daya Ram filed an application for their substitution in the recall application, as well as consequential amendment application. The substitution application as well as amendment application were rejected by the Additional Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 11.12.2008. The aforesaid orders were challenged by the respondents in revision, which has been allowed by Additional Commissioner by the impugned order dated 20.10.2009. The petitioner challenged the order dated 20.10.2009 in revision before the Board of Revenue, which has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Admittedly, Hari Shyam Mishra in his revision has substituted the heirs of Daya Ram, as such, the substitution in the restoration application was a formal substitution. The heirs were already on record. The Additional Commissioner, relying upon the judgment of this Court in Kanhaiya Prasad Srivastava v. Santosh Kumari 2003 (Suppl.) RD 453 (HC), held that substitution of the heirs at one stage would enure for the benefit of subsequent stage, allowed the revision and consequentially allowed the substitution application as well as consequential amendment application by the order dated 20.10.1989 and the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The order of Additional Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue are based upon the law laid down by this Court and suffers from no illegality. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.