JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. None appears on call for the opposite party. 3. By this application under order XXII, rule 4, CPC the petitioner has prayed for substitution of the names of the opposite party on death of the original opposite party, namely, Simanta Borkakoty who died on 4.4.2013, during the pendency of the connected revision. 4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that although the procedure prescribed under order XXII, rule 4, CPC is applicable for substitution of legal representatives of the respondent, as the connected revision application is under section 115, CPC, the provision of article 120 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable but the period allowable for substitution would be under article 137 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 where the prescribed period of limitation is 3 years. 5. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Full Bench Division of the Allahabad High Court for the case of Chandradeo Pandey v. Sukhdeo Rai, AIR 1972 All. 504 . The operative part of the paragraph 7 thereof is quoted below: In Sha Mulchand & Co. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd., AIR 1953 SC 98 the Supreme Court, while dealing with article 181 of the Limitation Act of 1908, observed: “That article has, in a long series of decisions of most, if not all, of the High Courts, been held to govern only applications under the Code of Civil Procedure. It may be that there may be divergence of opinion even within the same High Court, but the preponderating view undoubtedly is that article applies only to applications under die Code.” Now, the next question that requires consideration is whether article 137 of the new Limitation Act also covers an application under the Code of Civil Procedure. Substantially the language of article 181 of the old Limitation Act is pari materia with the language of article 137 of the new Limitation Act. If article 181 applies to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure, we see no reason why article 137 of the new Limitation Act should not apply to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure. Substantially the language of article 181 of the old Limitation Act is pari materia with the language of article 137 of the new Limitation Act. If article 181 applies to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure, we see no reason why article 137 of the new Limitation Act should not apply to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure. It may or may not apply to applications under other Acts, but there can be no manner of doubt about its applicability to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure. In 1971 All WR (HC) 560 a learned Single Judge of this court held that the residuary article 137 covers in its ambit applications and objections under special laws or any other law. The article should not be interpreted narrowly so as to keep it confined to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if there be some doubt about the applicability of article 137 to applications under other Acts, about which we express no concluded opinion, there is not the slightest doubt that article 137 would cover applications' under the Code of Civil Procedure. The consensus of opinion of the various High Courts has been that article 181 of the old Limitation Act applied to the applications under the Code of Civil Procedure. Article 137 of the new Limitation Act should also be given a similar meaning. Article 137, being a residuary article, must be construed ejusdem generis with the other articles, dealing with applications. As most of the other articles deed with applications under the Code of Civil Procedure, article 137 should also be Held to apply to applications! under the Code of Civil Procedure. In AIR 1966 All. 530 the Division Bench distinguished the Supreme Court decision in AIR 1964 SC 752 on the ground that the application in that case was not an application under the Code of Civil Procedure but it was an application under article 133 of the Constitution. That the application for substitution of heirs in revision is an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can admit of no doubt. Therefore, the period of limitation for bringing the heirs of the deceased opposite party No. 10 would be three years under article 137 of the new Limitation Act. That the application for substitution of heirs in revision is an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can admit of no doubt. Therefore, the period of limitation for bringing the heirs of the deceased opposite party No. 10 would be three years under article 137 of the new Limitation Act. The application for substitution was filed within three years of the death of opposite party No. 10, so there is no question of abatement or of condonation of delay.” 6. The aforesaid case was followed by the subsequent Division Bench of the same court in the case of Krishku v. Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Allahabad Bihak, (All) 2002 (3) 60 wherein by following the Full Bench decision in the case of Chandradeo Pandey (supra) it was held that the period for substitution of legal heirs is 3 (three) years under article 137. The hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir has also followed the said Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Chandradeo Pandey (supra) and by applying the said ratio in the case of Islamia College of Science and Commerce v. Gh. Hassan Balkhi, AIR 1989 J & K 35, it has been held that in a case of the petition of this nature which emanates from the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, residuary article 181 of Limitation Act would be applicable corresponding to the new article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 7. It is seen that the provision of order XXII, rule 4, CPC applies in suit and as per the provision of order XXII, rule 4, the provision of order XXD is made applicable in respect of the appeals and, as such, as per the language used in the order XXII, CPC, it appears that the provisions are not intended to be made applicable for the revision petition before this court. 8. Hence, accepting the view taken by the Allahabad High Court as well as High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, this court is of the view that for substituting legal representative of deceased party in the revision under section 115, CPC, the provision of article 137 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable, which gives the period of 3 years for carrying out the substitution. 9. 9. The sole respondent in the connected revision having died on 4.4.2013 the present application which was filed on 31.3.2016 is held to be with in the period of limitation. Hence, the substitution is allowed. The names of the present opposite party is allowed to be substituted as legal representative of the sole respondent in the connected revision. This application stands allowed. The office may do the needful by correcting the cause-title of the connected revision.