ORDER : Pranay Verma, J. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard on I.A. No. 6715/2018, which is an application for dismissal of revision on the ground of the same not being maintainable. 2. This revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff No. 1 being aggrieved by the order dated 12-1-2018 passed by the trial Court whereby upholding the objection raised by defendants 11 and 12, the suit has been dismissed as abated. 3. I.A. No. 6715/2018 has been filed by respondents 1, 4, 11 and 12 for dismissal of the revision on the ground of the same not being maintainable submitting that against the impugned order whereby the suit has been dismissed as abated upon recording a finding to the effect that the right to sue upon death of plaintiff No. 2 does not survive upon plaintiff No. 1, a Civil Revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that against the impugned order, a Civil Revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code would not be maintainable. However, he has submitted that against the same an appeal would be maintainable since it has been held that on death of one of the plaintiffs, the right to sue does not survive upon the remaining plaintiff. Such an order amounts to a decree and would be appealable as such. Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mangluram Dewangan vs. Surendra Kumar Singh and Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 773 and on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Mitthulal Har Prasad Naik and Ors. vs. Badri Prasad Kanchidilal and Ors., 1980 M.P.L.J. 778. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has submitted that against the impugned order the petitioner would not have any remedy. He cannot challenge the same by way of a Civil Revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, by way of an appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code or under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and not even under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He cannot challenge the same by way of a Civil Revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, by way of an appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code or under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and not even under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Such a contention does not require any serious consideration as to contend that against an order passed by a Court subordinate to the High Court, an aggrieved party would not have any remedy is to say the least, preposterous. 6. In Mitthulal Har Prasad Naik (supra) it has been categorically held by the Full Bench of this Court in Paragraph No. 5 as under :— “5. There seems to be a general consensus of judicial opinion that all orders of abatement are not decrees. Only those orders of abatement are decrees in which the Court comes to the conclusion that the right to sue does not survive on the death of the sole plaintiff or on the death of one of the plaintiffs to the surviving plaintiffs. The orders of abatement which follow consequent on the failure of the legal representative of plaintiff to be brought on record within the period allowed by law or due to the Court deciding that a particular applicant is not the legal representative, such orders do not amount to decree. The reason being that the abatement is automatic consequent on the failure of the legal representative to be brought on record within the period of limitation and no formal order is necessary. So there is no adjudication on the rights of the parties in the suit or appeal by such an order. xxxxxxxxxxxx In cases where the Court comes to the conclusion that the right to sue does not survive consequent on the death of the sole plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs to the surviving plaintiffs, there is final adjudication of the rights of the parties and the order amounts to decree [Niranjan Nath vs. Afzal Hussain, AIR 1916 Lah 245 (FB); Mt. Laxmi vs. Ganpat, AIR 1921 Nag 23; Venkatakrishna vs. Krishna, AIR 1926 Mad 586 (FB); Rampal Singh vs. Abdul Hamid, AIR 1928 Oudh 362 (FB); Sabitribai vs. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1938 Cal 639 ; Ramcharan vs. Hiranand, AIR 1945 Lah 298 (FB), Brij Jivan Lal vs. Shiam Lal, AIR 1950 All 57 ; Aiyappan vs. Kesavaru, AIR 1953 Trav-Co 545 (FB) and Arjun vs. Balwant, AIR 1954 Madh Bha 45.]” 7. The decision in the case of Mangluram Dewangan (supra) is also on the same lines. Thus, those orders of abatement are decree in which the Court comes to the conclusion that the right to sue does not survive on the death of sole plaintiff or on the death of one of the plaintiffs to the surviving plaintiffs. In the present case also, by the impugned order, the Trial Court has held that upon death of plaintiff No. 2 the right to sue does not survive upon the remaining plaintiff, i.e., plaintiff No. 1. The contention of plaintiff No. 1 that the right to sue survives upon him upon death of plaintiff No. 2 has not been accepted and as a consequence the suit has been dismissed as abated for failure on part of plaintiff No. 1 to take steps for substitution of legal representatives of plaintiff No. 2 or to delete his name from the plaint. Such an order holding that the right to sue upon death of plaintiff No. 2 does not survive upon plaintiff No. 1 amounts to a decree as per the decision in Mitthulal Har Prasad Naik (supra) and an appeal against the same would be maintainable under the provisions of section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the instant revision be itself converted into a First Appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code since the same was preferred within time. Whether a Civil Revision or a First Appeal would have been preferred against the impugned order, the same would have been before this Court itself and in such circumstances, this revision deserves to be converted into a First Appeal. Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of this Court in Om Prakash and others vs. Dwarka Prasad and others, 2004 (4) M.P.L.J. 168 and Ku. Rashida vs. Abdul Samad and others, 1970 ILR 498. Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of this Court in Om Prakash and others vs. Dwarka Prasad and others, 2004 (4) M.P.L.J. 168 and Ku. Rashida vs. Abdul Samad and others, 1970 ILR 498. Learned counsel for the appearing respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that a revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be converted into an Appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code as the format of both of them is different and proceeding which was not maintainable cannot be converted into a proceeding which was actually maintainable. 9. In Om Prakash and others (supra) it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that a revision can be converted into an appeal and an appeal can be converted into a revision if the same is filed within time and there is no impediment of limitation. Limitation must be construed from the date of filing of the revision petition or appeal. If the revision or appeal so filed was within limitation, for conversion into appeal or revision, it is to be examined that the appeal or revision, as the case may be, so filed, on the date of institution, was within limitation and if so, said permission can be granted. The instant revision was filed within time hence there is no impediment of limitation. Thus, in my opinion, the prayer of the petitioner for conversion of this revision into an appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. As a consequence, the application bearing I.A. No. 6715/2018 filed by respondents No. 1, 4, 11 and 12 is allowed and the Civil Revision is held to be not maintainable. The same is however directed to be converted into a First Appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code and is directed to be listed before the appropriate Bench for hearing. 11. This Civil Revision is, accordingly, disposed off.